Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. The complainant, respondent herein, filed a complaint alleging that he has purchased 2200 shares of the petitioner and sent them to the petitioner for transfer in his name on 15.12.94 by a registered post. The petitioner transferred only 1100 shares in his name. The respondent wrote several letters and gave lawyer’s notice but without any success. Petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent on 19.09.2005 asking him to furnish the details of the shares, which were accordingly replied. Earlier, the petitioner had informed the respondent that shares have been duly transferred and sent to him, thus, taking contradictory stand. Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to transfer the shares in the name of the complainant at the current rate and further remit the dividend as declared from time to time on the shares within 3 months from passing of the order. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay by detailed order consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Petitioner contends that the delay in filing the appeal was because of the review application, which the petitioner has filed. This plea has been rejected by the State Commission. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Order of the District Forum was passed on 21.02.04, which was received in April 2004. Review application was filed on 20.08.04, much beyond the period of 30 days’ prescribed for filing the appeal. Review application was dismissed on 13.10.04 but the appeal was filed before the State Commission on 28.03.05. The plea taken by the petitioner that the delay was caused because of the pendancy of review petition cannot be entertained for the simple reason that the review application was filed after a period of 4 months which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Perhaps the review application was filed to create a ground of condonation of delay. Further, there is no explanation for not filing the appeal till 28.03.05, i.e., after the dismissal of the review application on 13.10.04, which is again more than 5 months. The State Commission, in our view, has rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Consumer Fora are required to decide the complaint within 90 days of its filing where no evidence is required to be taken and in 150 days where evidence is to be taken. Delay of 8 times over and above the period of limitation provided for filing the appeal cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
