1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.05.2023 in Appeal No. 79 of 2023 of the State Commission Delhi arising out of Order dated 22.12.2022 of the District Commission in Complaint no.151 of 2018.

2.       Briefly the chain of events which led to the filing of the present revision petition is thus:

          District Commission vide its Order dated 22.12.2022 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.11,35,400/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order.  Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.  It was also ordered that in case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks the opposite party had to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the delayed period. Apart from it a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards costs.

3.       Aggrieved by the same the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission but with a delay of 10 days.

4.       Vide its impugned Order dated 18.05.2023 State Commission refused to condone the aforesaid delay and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on  the point of limitation.

5.       Ordinarily, the Bench could have issued notice to the respondents and waited for them to appear.  But such a course would have inevitably delayed the process of adjudication for an indefinite period of time as in the wake of pendency of cases it is not very likely that the matter could be taken up at an early date. The Bench in that eventuality might also have to stay the operation of the order passed by fora below.  Adopting such a course could have possibly been potentially detrimental to the cause of consumer justice.  Hence, keeping in perspective the nature of the impugned Order and its narrow canvas which does not involve any complicated questions of law or fact, being a simple matter of dismissal on the ground of short delay in filing the appeal, the Bench deems it just and appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record and not to procrastinate it any further.

6.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 22.12.2022 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.05.2023 of the State Commission and the memo. of petition.

7.       Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of her submissions, has reiterated the grounds taken in the delay condonation application. Contention is that the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal may not be termed as either inordinate or inexplicably drawn out.  Submission is that the certified copy of the Order dated 22.12.2022 was received by the petitioner from the District Commission only on 19.01.2023.  On 20.01.2023 the counsel for the petitioner was informed about the Order dated 22.12.2022 and he was instructed to prepare an appeal assailing the Order of the District Commission.  Submission is that since the project is situated in Haryana requisite time was spent in retrieving the documents from the site and only thereafter the appeal could be drafted and approved and thus a delay of 10 days occurred.  

8.       While dealing with the issue in question here regarding the limitation period, its breach and the availability or non-availability of sufficient cause to condone the delay where the appeal has been filed after the lapse of limitation period, the Bench deems it appropriate to first observe that the law on the point of limitation wherever it is provided has to be respected and complied with and in no case ought to be shelved with apathy or be blissfully ignored. Eventually, whether or not sufficient cause to condone delay is available or made out turns out to be a question of fact in each case and we have to see and keep in perspective the complete factual matrix and the syllogism of contextual circumstances under which the delay is said to have been occasioned and have to  then find whether or not the same constitutes a sufficient cause to justifiably lean in favour of the petitioner who prays that its cause should be adjudicated on merits rather than be thwarted at the very threshold on the ground of limitation.   

9.       While coming to the present case what we find is that the explanation regarding the delay of 10 days as furnished on behalf of petitioner has been quoted in the impugned Order and the same appears to be self evident and self speaking and needs no further elaboration. The State Commission has taken a somewhat inclement view of the matter without entirely appreciating the facts and circumstances in the right perspective as a result of which the petitioner’s cause remained unadjudicated on its merits.

10.     In the conspicuous facts and circumstances of the case as are emanating from the record the Bench feels that this is a matter in which it would have been better advised that the State Commission should have judiciously deigned to consider the explanatory circumstances of the case as good enough to constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. The Bench feels, in the peculiar circumstances and facts of this case, that it would result in something less than justice if the cause of the petition is thrown out at the threshold stage and not be allowed adjudication upon merits. The door of justice ought to have been kept ajar and the matter ought to have been better adjudicated on merits.

11.     Sequel to the discussion above, the Bench finds that the short delay deserves to be condoned with a token cost. The impugned Order dated 18.05.2023 is set aside with the direction that the petitioner shall pay a cost of  Rs.25,000/- to the complainants on or before the date fixed before the Sate Commission. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with request to decide the substance of the appeal on merit as per the law. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 04.10.2023.

12.     The principal onus of informing the respondents of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. It shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.  

However, if for whatever reason, the respondents do not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondents.

          In case the respondents still feel to have objections to the instant Order, they may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that they will raise their objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondents may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise their objections.

          If the respondents move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondents do not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

13.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.