Salma Noor, Member 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 28.05.2013 in complaint case no. 868/09 titled as Hero Electric Vehicle Vs Kulbhushan Mangla passed by the District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. 2. The District Forum passed an award in favour of the complainant and directed the OP/appellant as under: a. OP-1 shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the delay in handing over the invoice/insurance papers to the complainant. b. OP-3 shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him on account of misrepresentation as regards the mileage of the scooty. c. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of litigation. 3. Along with the appeal the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard Sh. Saman Yadav, counsel for the appellant and Sh. Kulbhusan Mangla, respondent in person and perused the record. 5. According to the appellant there is a delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal. 6. The grounds on which the appellant seeks delay to be condoned are reproduced below: a. That the appellant only received the impugned order on 01.08.2013 and after receipt of the order the same was forwarded to the manufacturer facility/head office of the M/s Hero at Ludhiana for perusal and compliance if no appeal was required to be filed due to which in this entire process time was consumed and the appeal could not be filed in time now in the first weeks of December, 2013, the management took a decision to file the appeal, hence the appeal has been prepared and filed immediately without any delay. b. That due to the aforesaid reasons delay has been caused in filing the present appeal. c. That in view of the above there is a delay of 161 days cause in filing the present appeal is solely due to the aforesaid reasons, which is neither intentional nor deliberate but for the reasons as stated above. 7. According to the appellant himself, there is a delay of 161 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons as given above for the delay is on account of some departmental and legal formalities that does not constitute sufficient cause. The appellant Company should have adhered to the schedule given in law and should have ensured that the appeal is filed in time. No good ground for condonation of delay is made out. Hon’bel Apex Court in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)=2012 (2) CPC3, (SC) Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, observed as under: “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Courts 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.” 8. Taking into the consideration, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above case, if the facts of the present case are examined, it clearly appears that the delay in the present case could not be condoned. Therefore, in our view the appellant has failed to substantiate its case for presenting the appeal after such a long delay. Hence the application for condonation of delay is rejected. 9. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation at the admission stage. 10. The FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities. 11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. | 
