HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY,  MEMBER

            The petition for condonation of delay is taken up for passing order. 

            The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submits that after passing the impugned order on 23.12.2015 the Appellants contacted their Ld. Advocate for the certified copy of the order, but the Ld. Advocate did not provide the same showing the ground of cessation of work since 08.01.2016.  It is further submitted that then the Appellants personally collected the certified copy of the impugned order on 03.02.2016 and filed the instant Appeal on 25.02.2016 after observing the formalities.  The Ld. Advocate finally submits that the foregoing submission indicates that there was no wilful delay in filing the Appeal and hence, the delay of 32 days should be condoned and the Appeal be admitted.

            On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent raises vehement objection to the prayer for condonation of delay submitting that the instant Appeal is an Appeal u/s 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said Appeal has been filed by the Appellants when the order for report for compliance of order was passed by the Ld. District Forum on 14.9.2011 after the  impugned order having been confirmed by Appeal Order dated 23.5.2013 in Appeal No. FA/75/2012.

            The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Appellants, having not complied with the order dated 14.9.2011 in respect of payment of Rs. 1,60,000/-, have filed the instant Appeal to delay or evade the compliance of the said order and hence, the delay having not been reasonably explained, the petition for condonation of delay should be rejected and the Appeal be dismissed.

            We have heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

            The materials on records reveal that the Appellants have not obeyed the order dated 14.9.2011 in respect of payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- passed by the Ld. District Forum within the specified date, which was confirmed in Appeal No. FA/75/2012.  Further, there is no mention of the duration of the cessation of work and hence, such ground does not appear to be cogent.

            In Ansal Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “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”.  The same view was echoed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Office of the Chief Post Master General & Orsz. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2013 (3) CPR 622 (SC).

            Besides, the records do not reveal that the Appellants have complied with the legislative mandate of the Proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of depositing the requisite amount as per the said Proviso.

            From the above facts and the evidence on records we are of the view that the Appeal is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected and the instant Appeal is dismissed, the same being time-barred.  No order as to costs.