NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4922 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 03.10.2012 in Appeal No. 1101/2012 of the State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. The Treasury Officer and Member Secretary Rajasthan Pension Relief Fund Collectorate Compounding Ajmer (Raj.) 2. Government of Rajasthan Through Secretary (Board of Trustees) Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, Directorate Rajasthan Pension and Pension Welfare Department,Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ....... Petitioners Versus Shri Gheesulal Jain S/o Shri Poonam Chand Ji R/o 71/14, Maliyagawardi, Saravagi Mohalla, Ajmer (Raj.) .. Respondent BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate with Mr.V.K. Sharma, Advocate Dated : 15th July, 2013 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of delay of 234 days as well as on merits. In the entire application for condonation of delay, no period has been mentioned. However, the ground on which condonation of delay was sought are reproduced below ; . That the order appeal was passed by the learned District Forum, Ajmer on 7.12.2011. Its copy was applied and delivered to appellants on 14.12.2011. 3. That the opinion of penal advocate, who had represented State before District Consumer Forum, Ajmer received on 15.12.2011. After perusal of decision and opinion the Treasury Officer cum Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Pensioners Department, Ajmer referred the case on 19.12.2011 vide letter no.10765 to the Director & Member Secretary, Board of Trustees, State Pensioner Medical Concessional Scheme, Pensioners Welfare Department, Jaipur. 4. That meanwhile, it was decided to reimburse the complainant Rs.66,000/- the prescribed reimbursement amount as per Rule. A letter No.15081 dated 26.3.2012 was sent to complainant to submit original bills followed by a reminder No.4488 dated 13.6.2012. The complainant submitted original bills on 26.6.2012, which were forwarded same day vide letter No.4943. A cheque No.387868 dated 1.8.2012 for Rs.66,000/- was sent to the complainant on 7.8.2012 vide letter No.7445-46. 5. That the matter was examined at Pensioners Directorate up to appropriate level for the rest portion of the order and decision to file an appeal was taken on 16.7.2012. 6. That the penal advocate appointed for the purpose was approached on 17.8.2012. The penal Advocate required a deposit receipt to be from District Forum, Ajmer verifying deposit of Rs.25,000/- as per proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The receipt was given to Advocate on 23.8.2012. as such the appeal is being filed today. 3. Admittedly, copy of the order of the District Forum was received by the petitioner as early as on 14.12.2011. As per averments made in the application, decision to file the appeal was taken only on 16.7.2012. Thus, more than seven months were taken by the petitioner to file the appeal and there is no sufficient explanation given by the petitioner. 4. The State Commission, while dismissing the appeal vide impugned order has observed ; he appellant has filed the present appeal with a delay of 234 days. It does not appear to be proper in the interest of justice by the reasons and clarifications given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Apart from this keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 7.12.2011 in complaint No.51 of 2011, passed by the learned District Forum, Ajmer. The District Forum has correctly used the facts which come on record, in which does not make any ground for interference. Further, on merits also no substance appears in the appeal. 5. Apex Court in case Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV(2011) CPJ 63(SC) has observed ; t 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 foras 6. Lastly, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on merits and as such, the impugned order, under these circumstances, is not sustainable. 7. The Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) = (2009) SLT 793= (2009) 5 SCC 121, has stated as follows : 2. 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 Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided 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. 8. We do not find any ambiguity and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which rightly did not condone the delay. There is no merit in this case and the same is hereby dismissed.