ORDER

1.       This appeal has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 16.05.2023  in CC No. 43 of 2018  of the State Commission,  Telangana.   

2.       The appeal has been filed with a reported delay of 102 days and admitted delay of 100 days.  As the delay does not appear to be insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the parties are being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

3.       Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application and has not added anything further to it.  It has been submitted that the appellant waited for the fee copy of the impugned Order for sufficient time but when the same was not supplied the appellant applied for the certified copy after paying the requisite fees.  The certified copy of the impugned Order was prepared and delivered to the counsel on 06.06.2023.  The copy was given to the legal department of the company and the advocates were consulted in Delhi.  The issues were discussed and further course of action was mulled over.  The process of identifying and consulting the advocate took time.  Later on decision to file the appeal was taken.  Time was also got consumed in obtaining further copies from the record of the case.  Time also got consumed in getting inputs from the counsel who was dealing with the matter in Hyderabad.  Eventually, the draft was prepared and scrutinized and after finalizing the draft the appeal was filed. All this process took time and the limitation period of 30 days for filing the appeal under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 expired.  As the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional the same maybe condoned.  

4.       First of all it may be observed that in the ordinary course whenever the aspect of evaluating the sufficiency of cause behind the delayed filing of a given petition or appeal, as the case may be, is involved, it is advisable to adopt a liberal approach and not a pedantic one.  A pragmatic view needs to be adopted as it is found preferable to decide a case on its merits rather than to thwart the same at the threshold on the point of limitation.  But while saying so, it must not be misconstrued to mean that the approach to be adopted can ever be such which may reduce the law on the point of limitation, wherever it is provided, into insignificance as if it is inconsequential and does not signify anything.  The law of limitation wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve which cannot be looked down with irreverence or with indifference.  The Courts, judicial or quasi-judicial as they may be, can never afford to ride roughshod over the solemn provisions of limitation wherever they have been laid down by the Legislature in its wisdom.  It is also to be kept in perspective that the failure to file a petition against a particular order and the failure to challenge the same within the prescribed period of time, often gives rise simultaneously to a right to the other side which accrues.  This is true that if valid reasons come forth and sufficient cause is shown which may go to vindicate the delayed filing of a petition, the same may be accepted and the delay may be condoned by the given Forum.   But this discretion conferred upon any Forum judicial or quasi-judicial as it may be, has to be exercised judiciously and in keeping with the norms.  The exercise of discretion in such matters is not the exercise of any prerogative or privilege.  It is essentially the exercise of a statutory power, granted by the Act, which has to be exercised judiciously and legally both.  The delay of larger periods may be condoned in a given case if sufficient cause may be shown which resulted in the delay.  On the other hand, a lesser period of delay may not be condoned if valid reasons furnishing or showing sufficient cause are not brought forth by the defaulting party.  The onus to show and furnish the necessary fac