1.       This appeal assailing the order dated 30.09.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, in CC No. 98 of 2018 has been filed as per the report of the Registry with a delay of 163 days. Heard the Counsels on IA no.4706 of 2023 with regard to the delay. Counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposes the grounds of seeking Condonation of Delay which include the grounds on account of festivals and Covid-19 Pandemic which had been declared over by March, 2022.

2.       The deposit of 50 % amount undertaken on the last date of hearing has also not yet been paid. Counsel appearing on authority on behalf of Appellant seeks a further period of one week to comply with the Order.

3.       The reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay are that the Applicant/Company was not aware of the judgment of the SCDRC dated 30.09.2022 and the free Certified Copy of the Impugned Order was only dispatched from the Ld. SCDRC, Panchkula on 04.01.2023 and received by the Appellant on 13.01.2023. Since the office of the Appellant Company is in Kundli, Sonepat, the Impugned Order was forwarded to the counsel on 25.01.2023. As normalcy post COVID was coming about, the Applicant suffered several orders and decrees directing the Applicant to refund over Rs.7,91,85,928/- to customers despite offering possession of the unit. The counsel was preparing Appeals in various matters which after review were filed. This process took longer than usual since on account of the festival of Holi, office of the Appellant Company was closed and the Appellant Company gave its final approval for filing the present Appeal on 15^th March, 2023. The Counsel accordingly started preparing the accompanying Applications to be filed and finalized the same by 27.03.2023.

3.       We have heard the learned counsel Mr. Shaurya Rohit and Mr. Sachin Sharma appearing on behalf of the appellant who argued for condonation of delay as per the IA. No documents to support any of the reasons for condonation have been brought on record.

4.       In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown to 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 all 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 as the Court may regard as relevant.”

5.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that a court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has held as under:-

“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.”

6.       While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The court has 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 Fora.”

7.       The reasons advanced to justify the delay are routine issues. There are no special or extenuating circumstances which justify disregarding the legislative command in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to the prescribed period of delay permitted under the Act. The special provision of limitation under the Act is with the aim to achieve the objective of the Act to ensure, speedy Redressal of consumer issues and to obviate litigations that defeat this objective.

8.       The cause shown for condonation of delay is insufficient. Hence, IA no.4706 of 2023 is not considered maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

9.       Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed in limine as being barred by limitation.