1.  This appeal under section 51(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is in challenge to the Order dated 02.01.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 14 of 2009.

2.  We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. We have also perused the record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 02.01.2019, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the memorandum of appeal.

3.  The State Commission passed its Order on 02.01.2019. The appeal before this Commission was filed on 12.07.2022. Notice to the respondents was issued on 08.08.2022. Now, on 06.04.2023, the appellants have filed an interlocutory application bearing no. 4537 of 2023 which seeks stay on the operation of the impugned Order. However the appeal itself was filed with self-admitted delay of 1226 days beyond the 30 day period laid-down in section 52 of the Act 2019.

4.  Learned counsel submits that the delay in filing the appeal may first be condoned.

5.  We see that the application seeking condonation of delay speaks on the merits of the case but it scarcely contains any such narration of the facts which may go to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.

6.  In this regard learned counsel submits that the facts which in his opinion constitute good grounds to condone the delay are given in para 7 of the application. The same is being reproduced below for reference:

7.    Therefore, the applicants-appellants are recently took advise from their local counsel. The local counsel advised them to file an appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.

Immediately, the appellants sent the papers of the accompanying appeal including relevant papers and duly sworn affidavits and vakalatnama to their counsel before this Hon’ble Commission at Delhi. Having received the same, the counsel for the appellants prepared the accompanying appeal and thereafter he is filing the accompany appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.

Learned counsel submits that appellants reached out quite late to the counsel and the appeal was filed before this Commission after the counsel so advised. He gives no other explanation for the colossal delay of 1226 days.

7.  To us this is by no means a justified reason for condonation of delay. Plea regarding taking legal advice belatedly resulting in the lapse of the period of limitation is often raised in such matters where perhaps nothing better is available to proffer. This but only points towards an unmerited attempt to anyhow explain the unusual abnormal delay coupled with a perfunctory and casual attitude if not total disregard towards the law of limitation.

Ordinarily one leans in favour of the defaulting appellant for the purpose of condoning the delay and prefers to decide the lis on merits rather than rejecting the same at the threshold stage but even a liberal exercise of such kind will require at least some semblance of a plausible explanation being proffered to bridge up the significant gap after which the appeal has been filed.

Here, but, the ground being offered appears to be wholly inadequate if not mendacious.

It alongside bears emphasis that the Order of the State Commission cannot be made a victim of inordinate efflux of time without just cause, moreso when as provided in section 52 of the Act 2019 (pari materia to section 19A of the Act 1986) the ideal normative period to finally decide an appeal is 90 days of its admission.

The powers which have been conferred to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and certainly not at will either whimsically or capriciously. The discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment in this regard wherever provided.

In the present case however one does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The onus of the appellants to show the factual basis from which may emanate such ground remains undischarged. The application for condonation of delay is palpably without worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming.

As such we have no hesitation in dismissing the application.

8.   Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed on limitation.

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