Lucknow Development Authority which was the opposite party before the State Commission has filed First Appeals No.347, 348 and 349 of 2011 with a delay of 179 days.

          First Appeal No.254/2012 has been filed by the complainant with a delay of 423 days.  Similarly, First Appeals No.238 and 251 of 2011 have been filed by the complainants with a delay of 87 days and 102 days respectively.

First Appeals No.347-349 of 2011

          Explanation given for condonation of delay in these appeals is that it was making efforts to amicably settle the dispute with the complainants and in this regard three meetings had taken place.  Since the efforts made by the appellant did not fructify, the present appeals were filed with the delay.  The dates on which the meetings took place had not been mentioned.  The appellant was asked to file the details of the meetings.  Instead of filing the details of the meeting, the appellant filed affidavit of Lower Division Clerk giving the dates of the meeting held.  Another reason given by the appellant is that the Chief Legal Advisor got transferred and left his charge on 15.04.2011.  Thereafter till date the post of Chief Legal Advisor is lying vacant.  Since the post of the Chief Legal Advisor was not filled up the appellant could not file the appeals in time.

First Appeals No.254 of 2012

          The reason given in the application for condoantion of delay is that vide impugned order dated 04.02.2011 State Commission had directed the parties to compute the expenses occurred on repairing and fitting etc. to make the allotted houses in living condition with mutual consent and to arrive on an amount within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order and the appellant was waiting for the compliance of the order; that despite his several personal visits and telephonic calls, the respondent did not comply with the order; that in the last week of February 2012 the appellant, for the first time, came to know about the filing of appeal by the respondent/opposite party before this Commission and he engaged a counsel to file the appeal; that translation of some of the documents from Hindi version to English version also consumed 18-20 days and thus, the delay occurred.

First Appeal No. 238 of 2011

          The reason given in the application for condonation of delay is that the appellant was an old person suffering from various ailments and was going through treatment for his high blood pressure, diabetes and heart problem and the Doctor had adviced him to take bed rest for 2-3 months and to avoid travelling.  Certificate of the Doctor has not been put on record.  Another reason given is that the appellant came to Delhi on 02.06.2011 to engage a counsel and handed over the relevant papers to him and thereafter, this appeal has been filed.

First Appeal No.251 of 2011

          The reason given for condonation of delay is that the appellant could not come to Delhi to file the appeal in time as his father, who was having heart ailment, was suffering from serious skin disease all over his body; that the work of translation of some of the documents from Hindi version to English version had also consumed 9 days; thus the delay occurred.

The appeals have been filed with a delay of 6 months,                       15 months, 3 months and 3 ½ months respectively which is over and above statutory period of 30 days for filing appeal.  Under 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.  Inordinate delay in filing these appeals cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Day to day delay has not been explained in any of the appeals.  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.”

The inordinate delay in these appeals cannot be condoned.   Applications for condonation of delay in appeal are dismissed, as a consequence thereof all the appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation