Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. None has appeared for the respondent.

     By filing the application under Section 5 o the Limitation Act, Act read with Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 260 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 08-09-2016 passed by the learned District Forum, Kamrup, in Consumer Case No. 12 of 2009.

     The delay is explained in para 4 of the application wherein it is stated that their engaged Advocate lately informed the application’s authority about the outcome of the case and it took time to undergo official formalities of taking opinion and getting approval from the Regional Office and Head Office, situated at Mumbai and in the process, there is a delay of 260 days. The appeal memo was presented along with the condonation of delay application and also with a demand draft towards statutory deposit on 8-3-2017, but the demand draft was already invalidated on 5-12-2016. Again the appellant company was informed and the company sent a renewed demand draft. Thus, a fresh application for condonation of delay of 260 days was prepared and filed along with the connected appeal.

     The respondent in his written objection has averred that there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay and the appeal filed by the applicant beyond the period of limitation, without satisfactory explanation of delay of 260 days, is liable to be dismissed along with this application.

     Learned counsel for the applicant has referred the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. Vs Gobardhan Sao and Ors. 2002(2) JT349 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs Katiji 1987 (2) SCC 107. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, it was held that “refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the vey threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties”.  

     In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. (Supra), it has been observed in para 11 as under;

     “Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules for limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not restore to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”

     It was held in the cited case that by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, the explanation furnished, should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of law and facts are involved in the case.

     In the instant case the respondent obtained a loan of Rs. 2,78,000/- from the appellant, a finance company, purchased a car and used it as a taxi. The said care met with an accident. The vehicle was seized by the appellant without prior notice to the complainant. The case was contested. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant has been prohibited to recover any amount from the complainant against the outstanding dues, payable by the complainant in respect of the loan. The appellant has alleged that the District Forum erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction as the entitlement of the appellant towards recovery of outstanding defaulted amount against the loan taken by the complainant is not vested with the District Forum. The plea of the appellant was that the vehicle in question was surrendered by the complainant due to failure on his part to pay the outstanding dues towards loan taken by him was not considered.

     We found that the issues in the instant appeal involves facts as well as law which needs to be decided on merit, therefore, We are inclined to condone the delay and accordingly delay of 260 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned.

     Misc Case is allowed and disposed of accordingly.