PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present first appeal was reserved for orders on the issue of maintainability under Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 23.01.2024. 2. The appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint no. 4 of 2014 whereby the State Commission is stated to have erroneously accepted the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to return the Engine no.24405 to the respondents along with a sum of Rs.27,85,093 at 7.5% interest per annum. The State Commission is stated to have arrived at its conclusion perversely without considering the commercial consideration in the Aviation Industry in addition to not considering all the documents on record and was liable to be set aside. The State Commission has been stated to have wrongly assumed that the respondent was a ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has wrongly held that it had territorial jurisdiction over the alleged cause of action by the respondent/ complainant. The alleged cause of action arose in Bihar where the appellant does not have any office or any professional presence. It is further stated that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received by the Appellant on 22.07.2022 by when the time allowed for preferring a First Appeal had expired. An application for condonation of delay was filed separately along with the appeal. The reasons for condonation of delay are stated to have been beyond the control of the appellant, who had to secure various documents that were as old as 15 years in order to effectively make out his case. Delay is stated to have been further caused by several cases of Covid 19 amongst the employees of the appellants in the month of August and September and subsequently, on the ground of festive season and various holidays in the months of September and October. 3. Appellant submits that it is based in Bangalore where it does overhauling work of engines. The cause of action cannot be said to have originated in ‘part’ in Patna, Bihar solely on the ground that the short tender notification dated 05.02.2006 was issued in Patna. It was further stated that the appellant had always been ready to overhaul the engine and it was the respondents who did not respond in time despite repeated reminders by it regarding the revised price proposed after the preliminary and Final Engine Inspection Report. 4. Briefly put, the facts are that on 05.01.2006 the respondent, viz., the Civil Aviation Department, Government of Bihar had issued an Enquiry in the newspapers seeking quotations for the overhaul of Cessna 172 R Aircraft parts. The respondent also issued a Short Tender Notice dated 05.02.2006 inter alia seeking bids for the overhaul of three engines of King Air C – 90 Aircraft. Appellants offered a quotation on 27.01.2006 estimated at Rs.84,64,434/- for overhaul of engines subject to terms and conditions. The quotation dated 27.01.2006 was accepted and a work order issued on 08.07.2006 allowing the pickup of the engines and stipulating a strip examination of the engines at Appellant’s workshop to be witnessed by the Engineer of the respondents. The appellants received the three engines on 15.07.2006 and on 23.04.2007 after the requisite testing a Final Engine Inspection Report relating to Engine no.24405 was prepared and submitted to the Quality Manager of the appellant. 5. Additional overhaul cost was estimated at Rs.78,54,920/-, including spares over and above Rs.10,95,150/- which had been previously paid. Since testing of the engines had been completed and 2nd instalment of 25% was due and the respondents did not make the payments, the appellant sought release of Rs.32,85,450/- on 17.05.2007 and informed that advance payments had to be made orders for almost all items. The respondents approached the State Commission praying that: (i) The respondents/ OP may be directed to complete the work of overhauling of engine no.24405 of the complainant and then hand over to the complainant with a fixed period of time on the same rate on which the work order was given to the respondents; (ii) The respondents/ OPs may directed to hand over the engine no.24405 along with the advance amount Rs.27,85,093/- along with 18% interest from the date of work order on the said amount, in case the respondent refused and not ready to overhaul the engine no.24405 of the complainant; (iii) The respondent be further directed to pay the litigation cost Rs.50,000/- along with loss occurred to the complainant at the tune of Rs.20 lakh due to non-completion and delivery of engine on time; (iv) The respondents be directed to pay the compensation due to deficiency in service as well as using unfair trade practice with the complainant at the tune of Rs.10 lakh; (v) The respondents/ OPs may be directed to pay the interest antelite, pendent – lite and future till the date of realization of the amount of award granted from this Hon’ble Court; (vi) To grant a physical and mental agony cost to the complainant and its officials as deemed fit by the Hon’ble Commission; and (vii) To pass any other order or orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Commission to meet the ends of justice. which came to be allowed on contest by the impugned order. 6. Appellant’s application (IA no.10204 of 2022) seeks condonation of delay of 65 days, whereas according to the Registry the delay is of 106 days. Appellant also challenges the respondent to be eligible as a ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and hence prays to condone the delay of 65 days in filing this First Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent in their reply on the application for condonation of delay stated that the First Appeal was filed on 21.10.2023 after a delay of 106 days and the said delay has not been sufficiently explained by the appellant. The reasons explaining the delay caused in filing the appeal were stated to be difficulty in gathering the entire record filed before the State Commission, Bihar, contraction of Covid by the employees of the appellant and the festive season during the months of September and October, which were contended to be reasons that cannot be accepted as sufficient grounds for delay of 106 days in filing the appeal. The respondent further stated that the appellant cannot rely on its lack of access to the relevant documents after having contested the case for 8 years before the State Commission. Respondent placed reliance on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission with regard to the showing of sufficient cause for delay to be condoned. It was, therefore, vehemently argued that the delay in filing the appeal not be condoned and the application for condonation of delay be dismissed. 8. Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reads as under: 24 A. 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, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning the such delay. 9. In State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 decided on March 20, 2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24 A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. 12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section24 A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” [Emphasis added ] 10. It has further been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others vs Tej Refrigeration Industries Limited – (2013) 14 CC 758 decided on 16.07.2023 as under: 11. A reading of section 12 and 24 A makes it clear that a complaint filed after expiry of two years counted from the date of accrual of cause of action cannot be admitted by any consumer forum unless the complainant is able to show that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period and the forum concerned records reasons for condoning the delay. The embargo contained in Section 24 A against admission of a complaint is unambiguous and if that section is read in conjunction with section 12 which prescribes the procedure for entertaining the complaint, it becomes clear that before admitting a complaint and issuing process, the consumer forum must feel convinced that the same has been filed within the period of limitation or that the complainant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for delayed filing of the complaint. Unfortunately, most of the consumer forums in the country do not follow the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 24 A and a large number of complaints are entertained without considering the issue of limitation. This results in overburdening of the dockets of consumer forums and consequential delay in the disposal of other deserving cases.” [ Emphasis added ] 11. Undisputedly the impugned order was passed on 07.06.2022. A certified copy of the same was available with the appellant on 22.07.2022, Considering the fact that the impugned order had been passed on contest, the period of 30 days provided under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/ Section 51 of the CP Act, 2019 was adequate for the appellant to prefer an appeal. Instead, appeal has been filed on 21.10.2022. The reasons advanced for the same are of a routine nature stating that records had to be obtained and collected which cannot be considered to be a de novo exercise as the appellant had contested the case before the State Commission, Bihar for nearly 8 years. 12. We have the heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given our thoughtful consideration to the documents on record. No documents to support any of the reasons for condonation of delay of 106 days have been brought on record by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. In Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), laid down that a court has to apply a 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 appeal leave 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.” 15. It has also been held in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The court has held as under: “It is also apposite 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." 16. In the instant case, the cause shown for condonation of delay 106 days is insufficient and not supported by evidence. The appellant is a duly constituted legal entity and is not an individual consumer which had contested the matter for nearly 8 years before the State Commission. The benefit of an extended period of time on the grounds stated for preferring an appeal are therefore, not found justified. Hence, the application is considered not maintainable. Consequently, IA no.10204 of 2022 is dismissed. 17. In view of the foregoing, the FA no.811 of 2022 is also dismissed in limine. 18. The date of 6th March 2024 given earlier stands cancelled. | 
