1.       This order may be read in continuation of our order dated 15.07.2013. As stated in this order, First Appeals No. 220 of 2012 and 420 of 2012, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution, were restored on 08.02.2013 on an application moved by the Punjab State Electricity Board, Appellant in those appeals.  However, the admissibility of the said appeals on the grounds of limitation had not yet been decided.  It was further noted that First Appeal No. 785 of 2012 had already been dismissed on the ground of delay, for which MA No.282 of 2013 had been filed seeking restoration of the same.  The cases came up today for consideration on limitation and MA No. 282 of 2013.

2.       Learned Counsels for both parties have been heard. 

First Appeals No. 220 of 2012 and 420 of 2012 :-

3.       As far as First Appeals No. 220 of 2012 and 420 of 2012 are concerned, we find that these appeals had been filed with a delay of 418 days and 496 days respectively initially without any application for condonation of delay and time was given to the Appellant-Electricity Board to file an application for condonation of delay.  Counsel for the Appellant-Electricity Board has now filed applications seeking condonation of delay in both the appeals, in which it has been stated that the delay in filing the appeals occurred due to the misplacement of the case-file in the office of the Counsel because of the renovation work going on in that office.  Due to this all the documents had to be called again and, therefore, could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. 

4.       We have considered the explanation offered by the Counsel for the Appellant-Electricity Board and are not satisfied with the same.  To explain the inordinate delay in both the appeals, which is over and above the statutory period for filing the appeal, day to day delay has to be explained, which has not been done.  Even the reasons given in the condonation applications are prima facie not satisfactory to explain such a long delay.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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.”

5.       The inordinate delay of over 400 days in both these appeals cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown which has not been forthcoming as stated earlier. Applications for condonation of delay are dismissed in both the appeals.  Consequently, the First Appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation.

MA No.282 of 2013 in First Appeal No. 785 of 2012 :-

6.       So far as MA No. 282 of 2013 for recall of order dated 14.01.2013 dismissing the First Appeal No. 785 of 2012 as barred by limitation is concerned, the inordinate delay of 334 had not been condoned vide our aforesaid order.  However, we had given liberty to the Appellant in that case to seek recall of our order in case the cross-appeals (i.e. First Appeals No. 220 of 2012 and 420 of 2012) filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution, are got revived.  The said appeals filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board had been restored but since we have dismissed the same on grounds of limitation no ground for recalling our order dated 14.01.2013 is made out.  MA is dismissed.