1.   This First Appeal has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the State Commission in C.C. No.106 of 2016.

2.   The present appeal has been filed with reported delay of 565 days. As the delay is neither insignificant nor small, the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent in person have been heard first on the application seeking condonation of delay in order to decide whether the same deserves to be condoned or not.

3.       Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application.  The submission is that as the transaction relating to the present matter had taken place long years before, it took extra time to trace the record and the information pertaining to the complaint in order to file appropriate and suitable reply which contributed to the delay. It has also been submitted that because of the covid pandemic the office of the appellants remained closed for a long time and due to lack of workforce and logistic support the appellants faced difficulties in carrying the management.  A number of staff people had been infected during the pandemic and that also contributed to the delay.  Submission is that the delay being neither intentional nor deliberate and the appellants having a good case on merits the same deserves to be condoned.     

4.       Perused the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar. 

      It may be observed that while evaluating the sufficiency of cause which resulted in the delayed filing of the appeal it is advisable to adopt not a pedantic approach but a pragmatic one and it is preferable to decide a lis on the basis of its merits rather than to scuttle the same at the very doorsteps of adjudication.  The pragmatic side of the institutional working of a department is also kept in perspective and an attempt is made to see whether the conduct on the part of the defaulting appellant reflects negligence, and whether the reasons which resulted in the delayed filing were within the control or beyond the powers of the appellant to control.   Ordinarily we aim to extend judicial indulgence in favour of the defaulting appellant who seeks condonation of the delay.  But while saying so it must be clarified that that judicial discretion in this regard which may be extended is not the exercise of any privilege or prerogative that has been vested upon us, the Commission.  Such discretion is always a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously in appropriate cases only.  It can also not be lost sight of ever that the period of limitation which the legislature in its wisdom prescribes in different contexts has an object to serve and a salutary purpose to achieve.  It is not an empty letter printed on the statute book without jurisprudential rationale and none can afford to ride roughshod upon the same at will.  After the prescribed period of limitation expires it often gives rise to a concomitant right to the other side and unless sufficient cause is demonstrated and valid reasons shown which may vindicate the delayed filing of the appeal, the same cannot earn condonation.  Any other approach may thereby reduce the statutory provisions prescribing limitation into insignificance. Though no cut and dried formula may be provided in this regard as to when and how much delay may be condoned and how much not, but, the concept of reasonableness of the explanation plays a pivotal role in making the evaluation about the sufficiency of cause behind the delayed filing of any appeal.  Sometimes relatively larger delays may be condoned while apparently smaller looking delays may not.  It all depends upon the genuineness, credibility and the reasonableness of the explanation which is proffered by the defaulting appellant who seeks such condonation.  Certainly, the scales of justice have to be balanced vis-à-vis the adversarial parties and a unilaterally liberal approach in favour of a defaulting party is difficult to adopt in such matters.  Flimsy grounds cannot take place of and fill-up the space of plausible explanation or sufficient cause which has got to be shown by the one who seeks such condonation.  We also have to keep in perspective the fact that the scheme of Consumer Protection Act contemplates expeditious disposal of the disputes and the filing of much belated appeals cannot be countenanced with in the absence of valid reasons to explain such delay.  The Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed the period of limitation and it has a salutary purpose to serve.  Its breach cannot be either soft paddled or blissfully ignored.

5.   When this Bench proceeds to make an evaluation about the sufficiency of cause or the validity of reasons that have been pleaded to explain the delay it is found that the explanations offered fall quite short of being adequate or enough so as to earn the condonation of delay involved in the matter. The impugned Order was passed on 25.02.2021 and the copy of the same has admittedly been received by the appellants on 17.03.2021 (as has been expressly mentioned in paragraph 3 of the delay condonation application) while the instant appeal has been filed on 13.10.2022.  In the normal course the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days by 16.04.2021.  There is absolutely no problem to condone the delay with regard to the period that was covid afflicted period.  Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has exempted that period for the purpose of counting the period of limitation, nevertheless such exemption period had ended on 28.02.2022 itself.  All petitions or appeals ought to have been filed within 90 days thereafter by all standards but in the present case many further months were allowed to elapse and there has to be a valid explanation in that regard which is entirely lacking in the present case.  So far as the subject matter of the complaint being old is concerned that does not appear to be a good explanation at all.  The complaint in question had already been filed in the year 2016 and all the necessary documents and evidence etc. had been filed in the complaint which was decided on 25.02.2021.  For the purpose of filing the appeal within prescribed period of time it primarily required the documents which were filed during the pendency of the complaint in the State Commission. Another additional documents if at all required may have been filed as additional documents with the leave of the appellate court after filing the appeal in time.  Making a feeble attempt to explain the delay by saying that the transaction pertaining to the subject matter of the complaint was old appears to be a lame pretence unworthy of being called a persuasive ground to act or rely upon.  The drawn out period of many months which was allowed to lapse subsequent to the exemption period granted by Hon’ble the Apex Court  indeed remains scarcely explained.  This unexplained period of delay is not of days or weeks but of many months and cannot be likely ignored or soft-peddled and in order to condone the same it would require a credible explanation worthy of acceptance which is entirely lacking.      

          The Bench does not see even a semblance of good explanation which may constitute a valid ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is without much worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such the  Bench  has no hesitation in dismissing the application.

6.       Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed on limitation.

7.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately.  The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.