The present appeal was filed on 21^st August 2018 against the order dated 28^th September 2016 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint no. 41 of 2014 which was an ex parte order, since the appellant did not attend the State Commission despite service of notice, as observed in the impugned order. Along with the appeal, the appellant has moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. In the application itself, the appellant had stated that there is a delay of 454 days, however, as per the report of the Registry the delay is of 655 days.

        It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that they have received the information of the order on receiving the notice of execution on 22.05.2017 and thereafter an application for supply of the certified copy of the impugned order was filed and the copy was supplied on 2018. Learned counsel for the appellant was engaged in the year June 2017, but due to personal bereavement in his family the appellant could not file the appeal well in time. The reasons given for the condonation of delay are mentioned in the application which reads as under:

“6.     In the present case the Management Committee of the Society has failed to handover the records pertaining to the Administrator till date, hence, a police complaint was also lodged by the Administrator against the officer bearers of the Management Committee with the PS Dwarka 23, New Delhi.

7.       The Administrator also directed the staff to verify the claim filed by the respondents then found that the total cost of the flat is Rs.57,15,000/- and decided to file the appeal before the Hon’ble Commission.

8.       The Administrator has appointed the present counsel to file appeal before the Hon’ble Commission but due to illness of his wife the present counsel from first week of October 2017 onwards till her death on 15.11.2017, the present counsel was busy in her treatment.

9.     After the sudden death of the wife of the present counsel, the counsel went into depression, busy in exams of his children and failed to file the accompanying appeal.”

        Reliance has also placed on the findings in the case of R B Ramlingam vs R B Bhavaneshwari – I (2009) CLT 188 (SC). It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a defunct society being run by the Administrator.

        I have given my thoughtful consideration and have perused the file. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that he came to know of the passing of the order only on 22.05.2017 is misconceived and contrary to the records. The impugned order itself shows that the copy of the order had been sent to both the parties by registered posts, on 05.10.2016. It is surprising to note that the execution notice was received by the appellant but it did not receive the copy of the impugned order. There is no doubt that the matter relating to the delay in filing appeal has to be construed in a liberal manner but where the delay is unexplained and is not convincing and no sufficient cause is shown the courts are justified in rejecting the appeal of the appellant on the grounds of delay in filing the same.

In “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of condonation of delay has observed 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.”

        The tests which need to be applied in the matters relating to condontion of delay are whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence or not.

The Court in another case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), (Supra) has stated that:

"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.”

        The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, while dealing with the matters under the Act has clearly stated that special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. It 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."

        There is no cogent, reasonable and justifiable explanation has been given by the Society against whom the case was filed by its member and it is surprising to note that the Society was not aware of the pending of the case when this order was passed. Moreover, it is clear from the impugned order that the copy was duly served to the appellant which must have been received by him. The Consumer Protection Act which is meant for the benefits of consumers. The Act requires that such type of unscrupulous violators of the consumer rights should be dealt with iron hand and no leniency should be shown to them.

        In view of the foregoing discussion, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.