HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This  Appeal has been filed  under Section 15 of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant challenging the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the   learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Paschim Medinipur, (in short, ‘the Ld. District  Forum now the Ld. District Commission’) in connection with Consumer Complaint Case being No. CC/34/2015 wherein  the Ld. District Commission was pleased to dismiss the petition of complaint on contest.
2. Along with the Appeal, an application for condonation of delay  has been filed by the appellant/complainant. The Office has submitted a report that  this has been filed with delay of 2901 days.
3. Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and on careful  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 the  financial condition of the appellant was poor and there was  shortage of fund and wrong advice from other   Advocates.
4. Upon  consideration of the  same,  I  find that the said reason is not at all acceptable as because though the appellant was  poor and there was shortage of money,  in spite of that he did not explain as to why the appellant   did not file the  appeal in time with the help of Legal Service Authority.
5. The appellant has  further  stated that he was wrongly  advised through other Advocates  but he has nowhere  stated the name  of other Advocates who advised him wrongly.   Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the reasons as stated in the petition of complaint are not believable and acceptable. So the cause shown is not sufficient, believable and acceptable.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal and Ors. – Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court  361 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 jurisdictionvested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonationhas to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficientcause is shownthen 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 naturallybe limited only to such facts as theCourt may regard as relevant.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari,  I (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 thatin 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.”

8. In another case reported in (2011) 14 SCC.
9.  578 (Anshul 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.
10. The Hon’ble Court has further 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 prescribedunder the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of theconsumer disputes will get defeated if this Courtwas to entertain highly bleated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora.”

11. In view of the above decisions and under this facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to condone the  inordinate delay of about 2901 days. The present Appeal is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.
12. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
13. The Appeal is, thus, dismissed being barred by limitation without being admitted.
14. The Appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.