STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

[1]   MIRC Electronics Ltd., Onida House, G-1, M.I.D.C, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093.

[2]   MIRC Electronics Ltd., SCO No.85, Ekta Market, Burail, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

[3]   M/s Broadway Agencies, SCO No.368, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Mr. Vinay.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

M/s EIKO Infosys Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.312, Ist Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh. Ashok Kumar Malhotra.

              ....Respondent/complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the applicants/appellants.

                Sh. Kamal Satija, Advocate for the respondent/caveator.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the majority order dated 12.03.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-

“In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OPs to: -

(i)    refund a sum of Rs.29,190/- to the complainant being the invoice price of the A.C in question. OPs are directed to collect the AC in question at their own cost.

(ii)  pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

(iii) pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation;

This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the invoice price of the A.C i.e. Rs.29,190/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of invoice i.e.20.04.2009 till actual payment whereas the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at the same rate i.e.18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.19.05.2011 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”.

2.               However, one Member of the District Forum, vide its minority order dated 12.03.2012, dismissed the complaint.

3.               The facts, in brief, are that on 13.04.2009, the Director of the complainant/respondent Company, visited the stall of Opposite Party  No.1, in CII Fair at Kisan Bhawan, Sector 35, Chandigarh, as it had displayed a number of Air Conditioners, and was  offering discounts and assured gifts, on purchase of its brands. Being allured, by the offer of the Opposite Parties, the complainant booked the Air Conditioner, bearing Model No.Onida 24-FLT split Type, and paid Rs.500/-, vide booking slip Annexure C-3, as booking amount. The total price of the AC booked by the complainant, was Rs.29,190/- inclusive of taxes. The AC was supplied to the complainant. The said AC was carrying one year warranty. The Opposite Parties, also offered the complainant, assured gifts i.e. one stabilizer worth Rs.1,800/- and extended warranty of one year worth Rs.1,500/-. The complainant was also offered discount of Rs.2000/-,  on the purchase of a second AC, plus 50% discount, on standard installation charges. The Opposite Parties were also offering 0% interest free finance facility. It was stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, informed the Director of the complainant, to approach Opposite Party No.3, on 20.04.2009, for taking the delivery of the booked AC, and to pay the balance amount of Rs.28,690/-, to it (Opposite Party No.3). On 20.04.2009, the Director of the complainant took the delivery of the said AC, after paying the balance amount. The said AC was installed, in the month of October 2009, in the premises of the complainant Company.

4.               It was further stated that, in the month of April 2010, when the said AC was made operational, it started giving trouble. The Director of the complainant, immediately  approached Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, and requested them to check the AC, but they did not respond. It was further stated that even after making a number of telephone calls, and written reminders, no one came to attend the complaint of the complainant. It was further stated that the A.C. which was purchased by the complainant Company, from the Opposite Parties, was suffering from some inherent manufacturing defects, which could not be rectified. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant Company, regarding the replacement of AC or refund of the price thereof, was not acceded to, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, through the Director of the complainant Company, directing the Opposite Parties to replace the defective Air Conditioner (AC) with a new one of same specification or in alternative refund its price i.e. Rs.29,190/- with interest @18% P.A.; pay a sum of Rs.3,250/- spent on repair of the said AC alongwith interest @18% p.a.; pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment; pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation, for adopting unfair trade practice; and Rs.25,000/-, as cost of litigation.

5.               Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, admitted that the Director of the complainant Company booked one 24 FLT Onida Split AC, at their stall, at CII Fair, and paid Rs.500/- as booking amount.  It was denied that any assurance of extended warranty was given to the Director of the complainant Company, at any time. It was also denied that the said AC was installed, after six months of its purchase. It was stated that no telephone calls or written reminders were received from the Official(s) of  the complainant Company, by Opposite Parities No.1 and 2. It was further stated that the first complaint was received by them, from the complainant Company, on 16.08.2010 i.e. after about one year, from the date of its purchase, and when their engineer, visited its premises, to attend the complaint, its Official(s) failed to produce the extended warranty card, which clearly proved that no extended warranty was ever offered to it. It was further stated that when the Director of the complainant Company, was told that the repair charges, if any, would be borne by the complainant Company, he chose to get the AC repaired, from outside. It was further stated that the AC, in question, did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defects. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.               Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, pleaded that the Director of the complainant Company, took the delivery of the booked AC, on 20.04.2009, whereas, the present complaint was filed, towards the end of May 2011, and, as such, it (complaint) was barred by time. It was stated that Opposite Party No.3, was not at all concerned with the booking of the AC, by the Director of the complainant Company. It was further stated that the Director of the complainant Company, never contacted Opposite Party No.3, for service of the AC. The receipt of legal notice, sent by the Advocate, engaged by the complainant Company, was admitted. It was admitted that the complainant Company, purchased the AC, during peak summer season. It was denied that the complainant did not get it installed, during that season. It was further stated that it was unbelievable that the said AC was got installed, in the winter season.  It was further stated that the alleged repair bills, seemed to be manipulated and procured. It was further stated that, in the repair bill 23.08.2010, there was a mention of gas leakage and filter change, whereas, in the earlier repair bill dated 14.08.2010, there was no such mention. It was further stated that the AC, in question, did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defects. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

7.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

9.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

10.            Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 243 days, as per the office report, (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days), in filing the same (appeal), has been moved. The grounds, set up in the application, are to the effect, that the case file was given to Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, at New Delhi, for the purpose of drafting and filing the appeal, alongwith the demand draft dated 20.04.2012 (infact 17.04.2012), copy Annexure A2, for mandatory deposit. However, the said Advocate did not file the appeal, within time, and after much follow-up, handed back the case file and demand draft, to appellant no.2, on 15.12.2012. It was stated that, thereafter, the appeal was prepared and filed alongwith two pay orders, one for Rs. 25,000/- , towards mandatory deposit and another for Rs.24,000/-, towards the balance due, under the orders of the District Forum, to express the bonafides of the applicants/appellants. It was further stated that Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, continued giving alleged dates of hearing, from time to time, to the applicants/appellants, but, later on, upon verification, from the office of this Commission, it transpired that he had not filed the appeal. It was further stated that, due to the aforesaid reasons, the appeal could not be filed, within the stipulated period. It was further stated that the delay, in filing the appeal, was neither intentional, nor deliberate. Accordingly, the prayer, referred to above, was made.

11.            In reply, filed by the respondent/ complainant, it was stated that the application for condonation of delay, had not been filed, by a duly authorized person. It was further stated that nothing was stated, in the application, as to what action was taken against Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, for not allegedly performing his duties and for being negligent, in not filing the appeal. It was further stated that even no affidavit of Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, was placed, on record. It was further stated that a copy of the impugned order dated 12.03.2012, was made available to the applicants/appellants, on 20.03.2012, and, as per their own admission, they allegedly gave the same, alongwith the demand draft on 20.04.2012, to Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate. It was further stated that the respondent/complainant, in apprehension, that the applicants/appellants would challenge the impugned order, had filed a caveat, before this Commission, on 20.03.2012 (infact 22.03.2012), which was also duly registered as Caveat No.2 of 2012, by the Registry of this Commission. It was further stated that a copy of the Caveat was duly served upon the applicants/appellants, before filing the same. It was further stated that, even after the caveat was filed, a notice was issued to the applicants/appellants, with regard to the same. It was further stated that the applicants/appellants, were never vigilant and diligent, in filing the appeal, within the stipulated period. It was further stated that, as far as back as on 16.05.2012, a Criminal Complaint/Execution Application was filed by the respondent/complainant and the Counsel for the applicants/appellants/Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, put in appearance therein, in the month of July 2012, and sought time, to comply with the order impugned. It was further stated that the case was adjourned from time to time, on the request of the Counsel for the Judgment Debtors, for compliance of the impugned order, when on 19.09.2012, he informed the District Forum, that an appeal had been filed before this Commission, which was fixed for 03.10.2012. It was further stated that, on such statement of the Counsel for the applicants/appellants/Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors, the Criminal Complaint/Execution Application was adjourned to 05.10.2012, but no appeal was found to have been filed. It was further stated that, on 09.11.2012, Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel, alongwith Sh. Raman Bhatia, Team Leader of Opposite Party No.2, as also on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and Sh. Vivek Kapur, Partner of Opposite Party No.3, appeared before the District Forum, and sought time, to comply with the order impugned, and, as such, the Criminal Complaint/Execution Application  was adjourned to 27.11.2012.It was further stated that, ultimately, the instant appeal was filed on 18.12.2012. It was further stated that the applicants/appellants, very well knew the fact that the appeal had not been filed, and continued taking dates, for compliance of the order passed by the District Forum, but, they later on concocted a story that Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, to whom the file case was entrusted, did not file the appeal. It was further stated that the delay, in filing the appeal was intentional, willful and deliberate. It was further stated that since, no sufficient cause was constituted, from the averments, contained in the application, the same deserved to be dismissed.

12.            We have heard the Counsel for the parties, on the application, for condonation of delay, as also, in the main appeal, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the Consumer Complaint, as also the record of the Criminal Complaint/Execution Application, carefully.

13.            The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 243 days, as per the office report (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days), in filing the appeal, under Section 15 of the Act. It was held in Smt.Tara Wanti Vs State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 32, a case decided by a Full Bench of the  Punjab & Haryana High Court,  that sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party, invoking the aid of the Section, and the test to be applied, would be to see, as to whether, it was a bona-fide cause, in as much as, nothing could be considered to be bonafide, which is not done, with due care and attention. In  New Bank of India Vs. M/s Marvels (India): 93 (2001) DLT 558, Delhi High Court,  it was held as under:-

“No doubt the words “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. However, when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in defending the case and their non-action and want of bonafides are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party. After all “sufficient cause” is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guide-lines can be given and Court has to decide on the facts of each case as to whether, the defendant who has suffered ex-parte decree has been able to satisfactorily show sufficient cause for non- appearance and in examining this aspect, cumulative effect of all the relevant factors is to be seen.”

14.               In  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it was held as under:-

“There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice, but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.”

15.                In R.B. Ramalingam Vs. R.B. Bhuvaneswari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the Special 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”.

16.           In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V (2010) SLT 790=III (2010) CLT 201 (SC), it was held as under:-

“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its  power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]”

17.           In Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977, S.C. 1221, it was held as under:-

 “Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around Section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigation who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay”

18.            In Ansul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) it was held 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”

19.           A bare reading of the first proviso, engrafted to Section 15 of the Act, makes it clear, that the material part of the language thereof is pari-materia with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Certified copy of the order dated 12.03.2012, as per the applicants/appellants, was made available to them on 20.03.2012. The version set up, by the applicants/appellants, in the application, for condonation of delay, appears to be a concocted one. Even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that the case file was handed over to Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, at New Delhi, for the purpose of filing the appeal, and, if he had not filed the same, within the reasonable time, then, it was the duty of the applicants/appellants, to make inquiries from him, as to what happened to their case, or which was the next date fixed, in the appeal, if at all filed. There is nothing, on the record, that any inquiries were made, from Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, as to whether, he had filed the appeal or not. Had the applicants/appellants, been vigilant and diligent enough, they would not have slept over the matter, for such a long time, as it was their bounden duty, to make inquiries from Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, whether he had filed the appeal or not. Since, they failed to make inquiries, from Sh. Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Advocate, it could not be said that the delay aforesaid, in filing the appeal, was for the reasons, beyond their control. Even, such a stand taken by the applicants/appellants, in the application, for condonation of delay, is further belied from the Caveat dated 22.03.2012, filed by the respondent/complainant, notice whereof was duly served upon them, on 28.03.2012. The factum, that the stand taken up, by the applicants/appellants, in the application, for condonation of delay, is concocted one, stands further fortified from the orders passed from time to time, in the Criminal Petition/Execution Application No.43 of 2012, filed by the respondent/complainant, on 16.05.2012, and was taken up for the first time on 21.05.2012, notice wherein was issued to the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors/ applicants/appellants, for 19.07.2012. On 19.07.2012, Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate, who is Counsel for the applicants/appellants, in the instant appeal also, put in appearance, and the case was adjourned to 22.08.2012, for compliance of the order impugned. On 22.08.2012, on the request of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors/applicants/ appellants, the case was adjourned to 19.09.2012, for compliance of the order impugned. On 19.09.2012, again on the request of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors/applicants/appellants, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-, the Criminal Complaint/Execution Application, was adjourned to 05.10.2012, for compliance of the order impugned. On 05.10.2012, none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors/applicants/appellants. Accordingly, they were ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants, in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one surety of like amount, for 09.11.2012. On 09.11.2012, Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel, alongwith Sh. Raman Bhatia, Team Leader of Opposite Party No.2, as also on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and Sh. Vivek Kapur, Partner of Opposite Party No.3, appeared before the District Forum, and sought time, to comply with the order impugned. Accordingly, the Criminal Complaint/Execution Application was adjourned to 27.11.2012, for compliance of the order impugned. On 27.11.2012, the previous costs were not paid. Again, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties/ Judgment Debtors/applicants/appellants, requested for adjournment, for compliance of the order impugned, which was granted, subject to costs of Rs.1500/- more, and the Criminal Complaint/Execution Application, was adjourned to 18.12.2012, for compliance of the order impugned. On 18.12.2012, costs were paid, and even the Counsel for the OppositeParties/Judgment Debtors/applicants/ appellants, stated before the District Forum that appeal against the order dated 12.03.2012, had been filed, and the same was adjourned to 04.01.2013. From the order sheets, summary whereof has been depicted above, it is evident, that the Counsel for the  Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors/ applicants/appellants, who filed the instant appeal, was very well aware of the factum, that the appeal had not been filed, and, that was why, he took a number of dates, for compliance of the order impugned. Once, the Caveat was served upon the applicants/appellants, and, thereafter, the Criminal Complaint/Execution Application was filed, by the respondent/complainant, they very well came to know of the factum that the appeal had not been filed, but even then, they did not act with due diligence and vigilance, resulting into delay of 243 days, as per the office report (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days), in filing the same (appeal). It appears that the applicants/appellants have coined a false excuse, to cover up their lapse of not filing the appeal, in time. The applicants/appellants were required to explain each day`s delay. They, however, miserably failed to explain the delay of 243 days, as per the office report (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days), in filing the appeal, which is about eight times, more than the normal period of filing an appeal, under Section 15 of the Act. Complete in-action and lack of bonafides, is attributable to the applicants/appellants, in filing the appeal, after a delay of 243 days, as per the office report (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days). The delay, in filing the appeal was, thus, intentional, willful and deliberate. Since, no sufficient cause is constituted, from the averments, contained in the application, the delay of 243 days, as per the office report (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days), cannot be condoned. The principle, of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The application is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

20.           The next question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, even if, sufficient cause is shown, it is obligatory on the Commission, to condone the delay. The answer to this question, is in the negative. In  Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it was  held as under:-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

21.           It is evident, from the principle of law, laid down, in Ram Lal & Ors.’s case (supra), that even if, sufficient cause is shown, then the Court has to enquire, whether, in its discretion, it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter, requires the Commission, to take into  consideration, all the  relevant factors, and it is at this stage, that diligence of the party(s) or its/their bonafides, may fall for consideration. In the instant case, as stated above, it was obligatory upon the applicants/appellants, to take immediate steps, to ensure that the appeal was filed within the stipulated period, as envisaged under Section 15 of the Act.  However, the applicants/appellants, just slept over the matter and did not take steps to file the appeal, in time. It was, thus, a case of complete lack of bonafides and inaction, on the part of applicants/appellants. The conduct of the applicants/appellants throughout remained contumacious. The principle of law, laid down in Ram Lal & Others’ case(supra) is fully applicable to the instant case.   This is, therefore, not a fit case, in which this Commission should exercise its discretion, in favour of the applicants/appellants, in condoning the delay.

22.           The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the Commission can decide the appeal, on merits, especially, when it has come to the conclusion, that there is no sufficient cause, for condonation of delay of 243 days, as per the office report (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days), in filing the same (complaint).  The answer to this question, is in the negative, as provided by the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) II(2009)CPJ 29(SC). The question before the Apex Court, was only with regard to the condonation of  delay, in filing the complaint, in the first instance, beyond the period of two years, as envisaged by Section 24A of the Act. The Apex Court was pleased to observe as under ;

“Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus:

“24A. Limitation period—(1) The District Forum, 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 Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

23.           The principle of law, laid down, by the Apex Court in State Bank of India’s case(supra), is equally applicable to the filing of an appeal U/s 15 of the Act. In case, this Commission, decides the appeal, on merits, after coming to the conclusion, that it is barred by time, it would amount to committing an illegality, in view of the principle of law, laid down in  State Bank of India’s case(supra).

24.              For the reasons, recorded above, the application for condonation of delay of 243 days, as per the office report (as per the applicants/appellants 274 days), being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal, under Section 15 of the Act, is also dismissed, being barred by time, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.

25.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

26.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

January 7, 2013                                                                                   Sd/-

        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg