HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER The petition for condonation of delay in filing the instant Appeal is taken up for passing order. The relevant and pertinent facts of the case are that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order ex parte on 20.4.2015 observing that the OP did not turn up to contest the case. It is stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the Appellant came to know about the impugned judgment and order on 26.10.2016 when the Police Officer arrested the appellant. Then the Appellant applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 28.11.2016, which was delivered to the Appellant on 29.11.2016 as appearing from the records. After getting the certified copy, the Appellant filed the Appeal on 13.12,2016. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that summon of the Complaint Case having not been received because of mention of wrong addess, the fact of passing the impugned order ex parte was beyond the knowledge of the Appellant. The Ld. Advocate continues that after coming to know about the impugned judgment and order the Appellant applied for certified copy on 28.11.2016 and after getting the certified copy on 29.11.2016, filed the Appeal on 13.12.2016 observing the required formalities. The Ld. Advocate concludes that the aforesaid facts indicate that there was no wilful delay on behalf of the Appellant in filing the instant Appeal and hence, the delay of 567 days should be condoned and the Appeal be allowed to adjudicate the case on merits. The Ld. Advocate refers to the following decisions in support of his contention: - Suchandra Bhuoria Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2015 (1) CHN (CAL) 622
- Mahendra Rathore, Vs. Omkar Singh and others, reported in AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 505
- Dulal Chhandra Ojha Vs. Banamali Guchait and others, reported in AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 91
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has raised vehement objection to the prayer for condonation of delay submitting that the Appellant did not appear in the Complaint Case concerned inspite of service of summon through Paper Publication, as revealed from the order dt. 2.2.2015 (Running Page-80 of Memo of Appeal), implying thereby that the Appellant deliberately evaded the case. The Ld. Advocate further adds that the Appellant entered his Hazirah on 27.10.2016 in connection with the Execution Case No. 194/15 concerned as appearing from the Order No. 11 dated 27.10.2016 of the Ld. District Forum, but applied for the certified copy on 28.11.2016, i.e. after expiry of about 30 days from the date of knowledge of the impugned judgment and order, indicating thereby that the Appellant was not pursuing the case diligently. The Ld. Advocate continues that after receiving the certified copy on 29.11.2016 the Appeal was filed on 13.12.2016, i.e. after expiry of about 13 days, thereby implying lack of diligence on the part of the Appellant. The Ld. Advocate finally concludes that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petition for condonation of delay should be rejected and the Appeal be dismissed, the inordinate delay in filing the instant Appeal having not been sufficently explained. The observation in the impugned judgment and order reveals that the Appellant did not appear in the Complaint Case concerned inspite of service of Notice through Paper Publication. The Order No. 11 dated 27.10.2016 of the Ld. District Forum concerned reveals that the Appellant appeared on the said date in the Execution Case concerned. On the other hand, the certified copy of the impugned order exhibits that the Appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and order after expiry of about 30 days from the date of their knowledge about the impugned order. The decisions referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant are of no help to the Appellant because the cases referred to are not in any way connected with summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The aforesaid facts and evidence on records indicate that sufficient explanation for day-to-day delay has not been advanced for condonation of the inordinate delay of 567 days. Consequently, the inordinate delay of 567 days in filing the Appeal is not condoned in the light of the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, reported in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC), wherein it has been observed :
“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.” - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459, wherein it has been observed :
“We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.” - R.B.Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, reported in 2009 (2) Scale 108, wherein it has been observed :
“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” In this context, reference also may be cited to decisions dated 17.12.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with the SLP to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Hon’ble National Commission refusing to condone the delay of only 13 days and the decision dated 1.5.2014 of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3614 of 2013 wherein condonation of delay of 65 days was refused. In the result, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected and the instant Appeal is dismissed, the same being barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. | 
