Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16th March, 2010 rendered by the State Commission, Delhi in Complaint Case No. C-136/2002. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal after delay of 167 days. The delay condonation application shows that the certified copy was received by the appellant on 23-03-2010 and thereafter the counsel informed the appellant on 09-04-2010 about necessity to file the appeal. The appellant was required to obtain medical treatment at Escorts Hospital and therefore could not arrange for filing of the appeal within the given limitation period. The appellant has placed on record certain documents to show that he was treated between 07-05-2010 to 12-05-2010 by Fortis Escort Hospital, and submitted that the application for condonation of delay may be accepted and the delay be condoned. Even assuming for a moment that the delay is condoned yet the question which remains to be examined is whether the impugned order of the State Commission can be faulted with. 3. The case of the appellant before the State Commission was that his wife died as a result of medical negligence. The death of his wife occurred on 24-09-1997. The complaint was filed on 16th April, 2002. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant failed to file any application for condonation of delay along with the complaint. The complaint was filed after about five years of the occurrence. The State Commission held that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation and could not be taken into consideration in view of Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That is why the complaint came to be dismissed vide the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the State Commission had issued notice vide order dated 07-05-2002 and therefore it should be assumed that there was no objection raised while admitting the complaint. He argued that the first order dated 07-05-2002 reveals application of mind by the State Commission and as such the complaint could not have been dismissed at subsequent stage. He contended that the complainant ought to have been given due opportunity to explain the delay. He further argued that the complainant explained in the complaint that he had preferred the representation to the AIIMS at the initial stage itself. 5. Perusal of the order dated 07-05-2002 does not show that the delay was condoned by the State Commission. The relevant order dated 07-05-2002 may be extracted as below:-- “We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the documents and material on record. Issue notice to the O.P. returnable on 28-12-2001. Service dasti also.” 6. The above order simply shows that notice was ordered to be issued. In other words, the State Commission had not considered the question pertaining to condonation of delay. The issuance of notice by itself does not expressly or impliedly amounts to condonation of the delay and consideration of the complaint on merits thereof. 7. Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:-- “24A Limitation Period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.” 8. Composite reading of the sub section (2) and proviso appended thereto makes it amply clear that unless the State Commission records its reasons for condoning the delay, no complaint can be entertained after a period of two years from the date of which the cause of action had arisen. Obviously, two things are mandatory in order to entertain the complaint after the relevant period of two years, namely, (i) that, there must be an application seeking condonation of delay caused in filing of the complaint which ought to be owing to sufficient cause; and (ii) that, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, must record reasons for condoning of the delay. In other words, in absence of delay condonation application, the complaint ought to be rejected at the outset in as much as it will not be entertainable. This is a settled position in view of the case of Radha Rani Vs. Bank of Baroda I(2009) CPJ 341. 9. Considering the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 10. The statutory amount deposited in this Commission may be released in favour of the appellant, along with interest accrued thereon, if any, by the registry. | 
