1.       This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 16.04.2024 in Appeal No. 107 of 2024 of the State Commission Delhi.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 7.

3.       Perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order and the delay condonation application which was filed before the State Commission.

4.       It appears that feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Commission an appeal was filed before the State Commission by the opposite party no. 1. But as the same was filed with some delay the petitioner / appellant was heard on the point of delay first.  However, the State Commission did not condone the delay and, therefore, dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation concomitantly.  Submission of learned counsel is that the Order of District Commission was passed on 23.11.2023 but the erstwhile counsel did not supply the entire records nor did he supply the certified copy of the Order dated 23.11.2023 to the petitioner.  Later on realising the situation another certified copy was applied for and which could be procured only on 16.01.2024. It has also been submitted that because of a typographical error this date 16.01.2024 has been wrongly typed as 16.01.2023 in the delay condonation application which was moved before the State Commission.  Further time got consumed in restructuring the file after collecting the records all over again.  Thereafter the matter was studied and prepared by the new counsel and then only the appeal could be filed. Contention is that it is in this background that the delay took place in filing the appeal which was neither intentional nor deliberate and deserved condonation. Submission is that view taken by the State Commission had been on the harsher side.  It has also been submitted that the petitioner has a very good case on merits and if opportunity to contest the case on merits would not be provided, the prejudice caused shall be fatal to its cause and would be irreparable. 

5.       Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 7 / complainants has opposed and has submitted that the State Commission had the discretion to condone or not to condone the delay and the discretion so exercised by the State Commission in the matter does not call for any interference.

6.       Before proceeding any further it may be observed that the law of limitation wherever it is provided has its own sanctity and is meant to be followed by all concerned. However, it may also be observed that even though in the Consumer Protection Act the period of limitation for filing the appeal / petition has been prescribed but provision has also been made to entertain the complaints or the appeals or the revision petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation if valid reasons and sufficient cause for the delay has been shown by the defaulting party.  While evaluating the sufficiency of cause a pedantic approach has to be eschewed and averted and keeping in perspective the pragmatic side of the human affairs and the day-to-day working, the sufficiency of causes need to be decided on the anvil of reasonableness as it is ordinarily found preferable to decide the lis on merits rather than to scuttle the same at the threshold of limitation.  It goes without saying that in the matters where the cause shown is not sufficient and if the explanations are not found to be credible, convincing, reliable and creditworthy the delay cannot be absolved. 

7.       Referring to the facts of the present case it is seen that the Order of the District Commission was passed on 23.11.2023 and the appeal was filed on 09.02.2024.  According to the State Commission the same was filed with a delay of 33 days.  It has also been taken note of by the State Commission that the certified true copy of the Order of the District Commission shows that the District Commission had dispatched the order only on 07.12.2023.  In that view of the matter the period of limitation has to be counted from there onwards.  This will resultantly reduce the period of delay further by almost 15 days.  Now if we go by what has been pleaded in the delay condonation application the duplicate copy was applied for and procured on 16.01.2024 only and on that reckoning there would be hardly any delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission.  Even if we count the period of limitation from the date of the dispatch of the free certified copy, the delay involved becomes significantly small and reduced.  The explanations regarding the communication gap and the failure to provide the copies and records by the erstwhile counsel have been pleaded to explain whatever little delay is involved in the matter. 

8.       Keeping in perspective the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that in a matter like this the view taken by the State Commission appears to be on the stricter side.  In order to strike a balance the delay involved may be condoned on suitable terms.  It is, therefore, deemed appropriate to direct that the impugned order will stand set aside and the delay involved shall stand condoned subject to the condition of depositing of cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner / appellant  to the complainant no. 1 / respondent no. 1 (who shall receive the same on behalf of all the complainants) either directly or through the State Commission on or before the date fixed, without fail.

          If the petitioner complies with the terms as directed above, the learned State Commission shall proceed further in the matter and decide the same in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties deeming the delay to have been condoned. The matter is thus remitted back to the State Commission with the request to proceed further as per observations / directions made above.

9.       The matter is remitted back to the State Commission with the request to decide appeal on merits in accordance with law.

10.     The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 27.09.2024.

11.     The principal onus of informing the respondents no. 8 & 9 of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. It shall do so within four weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.  

However, if for whatever reason, the respondents no. 8 & 9 do not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondents.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to their learned counsel as well to the State Commission.  The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.