Petitioner/complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission in the year 2006 which was assigned CC No.46/2006.  The case was posted for orders on 17.8.2011.  Before the orders could be pronounced, appellant filed an application seeking re-opening of the case, which was accepted and the case was posted for several hearings including 23.1.2012, 9.3.2012 and 19.4.2012.  Neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared. 

           State Commission dismissed the complaint in default of appearance observing that it seems that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the case.

       Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, appellant has filed this appeal with a delay of 94 days, which is over and above the period of 30 days statutorily given to an aggrieved party to file the Appeal.  The only explanation given for condonation of delay is that the file got misplaced in the office of the counsel with the disposed of cases and he could not attend the hearing on two occasions as he had noted the date of hearing on the brief itself.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and, in case, some expert evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days.  Where the statute has permitted only 30 days for filing the Appeal, the delay, three times over the statutory period given for filing the Appeal, cannot be condoned until and unless some sufficient ground is shown.

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.”

        We are not satisfied with the cause shown.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.   Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. 

        Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this appeal.  The case was re-opened at the instance of the appellant on 17.8.2012 and thereafter the case was listed for hearing on several dates.  Counsel for the appellant did not appear on either of the dates fixed.  State Commission rightly dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.  Restoration of such cases defeats the very purpose of the enactment of Consumer Protection Act as the consumer fora have to decide the cases in a time-bound manner as indicated hereinabove.  Repeated lapses of non-appearance on the part of either of the parties or their counsel cannot be condoned.  Dismissed.