HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the   Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, Hooghly at  Chinsurah (in short, the District Commission) in connection with the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/70/2020.
2. Along with the Appeal, an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant.
3. The office  has submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 230 days.
4. Heard  Ld. Advocates appearing for both the parties at length and in full over the  application for condonation of delay.
5. Having heard the  Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the record it appears to me that in the application, the reason given for the delay in filing of the appeal is that appellant did not receive any summons and  complaint petition from  the complainant and/or the Ld. Commission and appellant had no knowledge regarding the instant case and came to know regarding the claim when the  execution case  was preferred by  the complainant being the respondents herein vide Execution Application No. EA/4/2023.
6. On careful scrutiny of the record including the copy of the orders passed by the Ld.  District Commission, it appears to me that notices were duly served upon the  appellant and another and the service of notice was satisfactory but the appellant and another did not turn up   before the Ld. District Commission, as such, the Ld. District Commission was pleased to fix the date for ex parte hearing vide  Order No. 5 dated 05.03.2021.
7. On consideration of the same, I hold that the appellant has filed the instant  Appeal only to get rid of from the execution case being Execution Application No. EA/4/2023. Therefore,  I hold that the cause shown is  insufficient.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal and Ors. – Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361  has observed as under:
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court  in another case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari,  1 (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a Court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The Court has held as under:

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appealleave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

10. In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC 578 (Ansul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein.
11. The Hon’ble Court has further held as under:

“It is alsoapposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora.”

12. In view of the above decisions  and under these facts and circumstances, I  find no sufficient ground to  condone the inordinate delay of about 230 days. The  present Appeal is nothing but an attempt  to abuse the process of law.
13. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
14. The Appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being  admitted.
15. The  Appeal is, thus, disposed of, accordingly.