1.      There was a delay of 112 days before the State Commission while the First Appeal was filed.  The counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission.  The delay was explained in para Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which are reproduced as follows:

          “3.     That after the passing of the award the appellant was advised by the counsel in the lower court that the amount of compensation can be set aside or modified by this Hon’ble Commission and the limitation of filing the appeal in this Hon’ble Commission is 90 days.  Thus the appellant was under a bonafide impression that the appeal can be filed within 90 days after the delivery of the impugned award.

          4.      That the appellant in order to file appeal in this Hon’ble Commission engaged the counsel and only then he came to know that the limitation of filing the appeal in this Hon’ble Court is only 30 days.  But by that time a delay of about 2 months has occurred.

-3-

          5.      That the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to the above said reason, and is liable to be condoned.”

2.      Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 62 days only because he did not receive the free copy.  He further submits that the name of the company was changed during these days.  It is well said that the men can lie but the documents cannot.  It is specifically mentioned that          the order was supplied free of cost to the parties / counsel on 20.05.2011 vide entry No. 727.  There is a delay of more than 100 days.  The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay.  We have also perused the reasons given in the application.  An Advocate is supposed to know the law.  The Advocates working at the State Commission level are well aware that the period of filing the appeal is thirty days.  Such kind of stories can be created at any time.  We are unable to believe such like version.

3.      The State Commission placed reliance on the various authorities in support of its case.  The State Commission cited (1) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221,

(2) Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others Versus Ram Lubhai II (2006) CPJ 104, (3) State of Nagaland Versus Lipok and Others 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 414, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

-4-

Court opined that proof of ‘sufficient cause’ is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay.  Even if the story preponded by the complainant is accepted as true, it is not understood, why there was further delay of 62 days there-from.  Day-to-day delay was not explained to the satisfaction of the Commission.   We are further fortified by another authority pertaining to the C.P. Act, which is reported in Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also opposite 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”.

4.      Other authorities which also support the view that there should be sufficient ground for condonation of delay are reported in R.B. Ramlingam V. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)-I (2009) SLT 701-2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields

-5-

Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361.  It is thus clear that the appeal filed before the State Commission was barred by limitation.

5.      Even on merits, the petitioner does not have a strong case.  The main question is whether the seed supplied by the petitioner is below the standard or not.  The State Commission came to the following conclusion:

          “Even on merits, the report of Deputy Director (Agriculture), Hisar shows that there were three kinds of plants in the crop, height of some of which were 2 to 2 ¼ feet and some of which were 4 feet and this was told by Jagdish / Complainant that this fact came to his notice at the time of ear head inspection team opined loss to the extent of 75%.  This shows there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops had sold the seed which was having mixing of the different varieties and due to which loss has been caused to the complainant.  The District Consumer Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.”

6.      No ground.  Dismissed.

7.      It has also been brought to our notice that petitioner has not paid litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent

-6-

No.1/complainant through Demand Draft.  Further one month time is given for the same; otherwise the respondent can execute that order.

8.      Vakalatnama may be filed by the counsel for Respondent No.1 in the Registry during the course of the day.