PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.           There is a delay of 248 days in filing the First Appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal on that ground only.  We have heard the counsel for the parties.  Our attention is invited towards the application for condonation of delay moved before the State Commission.  Delay is explained in paras 3,4,5 & 6 of the application for condonation of delay.  The main defense set up by the petitioner is that he had received the summons of execution petition filed by the Respondent for the first time on 21.03.2012.  Prior to that he had no knowledge about this case.  Thereafter, the petitioner sought opinion from advocate Mr. Gopal Khanna and he advised them to take appropriate legal remedies.  In the meantime the application was moved before the Execution Court on 27.04.2012.    Thereafter, the matter was put up before the Legal Finance Committee on 28.03.2012.  It was decided that the appeal should be filed which was filed on 23.04.2012. 

2.      By no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, particularly, when the order passed by the District Forum goes against all these contentions and it appears that an attempt was made to mis-lead this Commission.  The Complainant was heard by Mr. C.K.Chaturvedi.  We have perused his order delivered on 02.08.2011.  It clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that both the parties were present.  First para is reproduced as follows:-

“Present Both parties.

We have heard the complainant and OP in the light of reply filed on record, rejoinder, evidence of parties and submission made in the court.”

3.      It is thus clear that both the parties were present before the District Forum and it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the petitioner was not aware of all these proceedings.  Petitioner has failed to prove the day to day delay of 248 days.  These findings neatly dovetail with a number of authorities by the Apex Court and other Courts :-

4.      In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has held 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 of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

5.          Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Balwant Singh (dead)  Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors.,   (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006),  decided  on 08.07.2010 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

6.      It must be borne in mind that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of  Section 5 of Limitation Act. There must be some cause that must be sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation.  We do not find any such sufficient cause stated in the application for condonation of delay and on the contrary we find that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands.  He has been trying to pull the wool in the eyes of this Commission from each and every aspect.  Under these circumstances, we find that the learned State Commission has correctly decided the case and same cannot be faulted. 

7.      The Revision Petition is dismissed.  At this state Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a Consumer.  The complaint is barred by time and the Courts have failed to see these points.  These arguments carry no conviction at this stage.

8.          Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, we impose Rs. 25,000/- as punitive costs, which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12 (3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by way of demand draft in favour of P.A.O., Ministry of Consumer Affairs, payable at New Delhi, within 90 days from today, otherwise it will carry interest @9% per annum till its realization.  Learned Registrar of this Commission shall see compliance of the order under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.