Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member

1. The instant consumer case has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party/developer before this Commission praying for certain reliefs as prayed for. Be it mentioned here that the said petition of complaint has been filed by the complainants accompanied with an application for delay condonation under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. The application for delay condonation has been taken up for hearing.
3. We have heard the ld. advocate appearing for the complainants at length and in full.
4. We have considered the submissions of the ld. advocate.
5. We have perused the materials available on the record meticulously.
6. Hearing on the point of delay condonation has been concluded.
7.  From the four corners of the record, it appears to us that the cause of action of action has been arisen on 07/05/2018. The instant consumer case (along with application for delay condonation) has been filed on 31/03/2023. The office record calculates that there is delay of 1059 days in filing the instant consumer case. So, before admission of the instant consumer case, it should be decided at first that whether the application for delay condonation will be allowed or not in pursuant to the provision of law.
8. In this respect we try to rely upon section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which runs as follows:-

     “69. Limitation Period.- (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

    (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

     Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

9. From the aforesaid provision it appears to us that the provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine before admission of  the complaint that whether it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action or not. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the petition of complaint, if the sufficient cause is shown.
10. Upon careful perusal of the application under section 69 of the Act 2019 it appears to us that at first the cause of action has been arisen on 10/01/2014 when the complainants have entered into development agreement and the same has been still continuing due to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the development agreement dated 10/01/2014. In paragraph no – 10, the complainants are well aware that the limitation of filing the complaint should be within two years from the date of cause of action. So there is no hesitation to hold that there is a clear delay in filing the instant case.
11. It is quite admitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to extend the limitation period till 29/05/2022 by virtue of Suo Moto Writ Petition being no – 3 of 2020. But it is very unfortunate that the complainants have failed to file the instant consumer case before this Commission within 29/05/2022.
12. The said petition also reveals that apart from aforesaid event there is clear delay of 300 days. But there is no clear explanation to cause the aforesaid delay. Day to day delay should be explained as per settled principle of law but no sufficient cause or reason has been explained regarding the aforesaid delay.
13. In this regard we can safely rely upon Anshul Aggarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Develpment Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that 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 on the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.
14. In Satyam Computer Services Ltd vs A. Prakash & Another reported in II (2013) CPJ 18B(NC) (CN) wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to hold that inordinate delay of 56 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. Day to day delay should be explained but the said delay has not been explained and accordingly the delay is not condoned.
15. We find no sufficient cause or reason in the petition of condonation of delay filed by the complainants. The aforesaid delay of 300 days should be explained elaborately. But the aforesaid delay of 300 days cannot be explained properly. At this juncture there is no hesitation to state that we cannot go beyond the settled principle of law.
16. Considering all aspects from all angles and keeping in mind the present provisions of law and regard being had to the citations of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble NCDRC we are constrained to hold that there is inordinate delay in filing the instant petition of complaint and to that effect we hold that the delay should not be condoned as it is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly,

It is

                                                       ORDERED

  That the instant petition under section 69 of the Act 2019 is not condoned as per above observations and subsequently the instant CC case being no – CC/38/2023 stands dismissed at the admission stage without any order as costs.

   Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainants free of cost forthwith.

   Note accordingly.

   Office to comply.