The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay.  There was a delay of 108 days in filing the appeal, which was over and above the statutory period of          30 days given for filing the appeal.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the case within a period of 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days, wherever expert evidence

-2-

is required to be taken.  The inordinate delay of 108 days could not be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  Delay of each day has to be explained.  The State Commission in its order has given the following reasons for not condoning the delay:

3. The contention of the appellant that he received copy of the judgment on 08.2.2010 is not correct.  He has not filed even registered envelop inside which the certified copy of the judgment was received to demonstrate in support of his contention.  Even if we assume for the sake of arguments that the copy of the judgment was received on 08.2.2091, the appeal will be time barred because it was filed on 23.3.2010.  The appellant’s contention is that it had to verify some record to facilitate the preparation of the appeal.  The appellant did not check the record and the time continued to run, and the limitation expired which is not rational, reasonable and realistic explanation to be accepted.  There is as such unexplained delay and the explanation of which offered is futile, valueless and it deserves to be rejected out of hand, and we accordingly do so.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the delay of 108 days, which comes to three times over the statutory period given for filing the appeal, could not be condoned without

-3-

showing sufficient cause.  We also agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner had not been able to explain the inordinate delay of 108 days in filing the appeal.  No merits.  Dismissed.