Complainant/respondent took admission in the petitioner institution for studying PG diploma in Management in the year 2006 and deposited Rs.70,000/-. He was assured by the appellant that the aforesaid course would start from April 2007. Respondent did not receive any information regarding the start of the course. Later on, respondent shifted to Mathura Road, Delhi. Alleging that the course offered by the petitioner was not recognized by the Indian Council for Technical Education, respondent sought refund of the deposited amount of Rs.70,000/- which was not done by the appellant. Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant/respondent along with interest @ 9% p.a. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed without passing a speaking order. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the revision petition bearing No.1022/2012 which was allowed and the case was remitted back to the State Commission to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order. On remand the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of 74 days as well as on merits. The State Commission has again endorsed the findings recorded by the District Forum. -3- Petitioner had filed the appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 74 days which was 2½ times over the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken. The inordinate delay of 74 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The only reason given in the application for condonation of delay is that the certified copy of the order dated 14.09.2011 was obtained and sent to Delhi to obtain opinion from its Advocate and on his suggestion decision was taken to file the appeal against the impugned order; that thereafter the appellant sent record relating to the case to its Advocate in Jaipur who prepared the draft of the same and sent to the appellant for approval on 14.09.2011; thereafter the appeal was filed. We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condonation of delay. Since no valid reason has been assigned for condoning the delay, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal on the -4- ground of limitation. Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)” has held that while deciding the application filed 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 the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained. Relevant observations are 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 foras.”
-5- No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. | 
