The challenge in this revision petition under Section 21 of

-2-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”) is to an order dated

06.09.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short, ‘‘State Commission’’) in Misc. Application No.1554/2013 filed in Appeal No.932 of 2013.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the appeal and consequently, the appeal as barred by time.                                       

               We have perused the application seeking condonation of delay filed before the State Commission.  It was stated in the application that the delay occurred due to the reason that the appellant was unaware of the period for filing the appeal and when he contacted his counsel, he came to know about the said fact and immediately thereafter, engaged the counsel and filed the appeal.

               We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the reason given for the delay is not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as ignorance of law is no excuse, more so when the person concerned is assigned by a lawyer.  Before the State Commission, the appeal could be filed within 30 days of receipt of the order.  The delay was two times more

-3-

than the time granted for filing the appeal.  Consumer Foras are supposed to decide the case expeditiously in a summary manner.  Delay                   of two times over the statutory period granted for filing the appeal cannot be condoned under the spirit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (See: Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578)  The State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of Delay. We do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting inference.  Revision petition stands dismissed accordingly.