There was a delay of 124 days in filing the Appeal, which was over and above the period of 30 days, which is statutorily given to an aggrieved party to file the Appeal.  The only explanation given was that the file was moving from table to table to get the sanction for filing the appeal.  State Commission has rejected the explanation given by the petitioner by observing thus :

“4. The explanation offered by the appellant is manifestly insufficient. If such puerile explanations are accepted every delay will have to be condoned. For the purpose of condonation of delay there must be some legitimate justified reasons. The appellant provides a classic example of how matters proceed at a snails pace in government departments, but that does not, in any case, provides any reasonable or legitimate ground for condonation of delay. Time and tide wait for no man and in the transfer of file from one table to another the time for filing the appeal expired. We have noticed that Post Master General has been repeatedly filing the appeals with delay on the same grounds and procedure being the time consuming which cannot be accepted time and again.

5. Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani &  Ors.  (supra),  and  State  (NCT of Delhi)  v.

Ahmed Jaan (supra), has observed that the Government at appropriate level should constitute legal calls and in the event of decision to file appeal, the officer responsible for filing appeal should take prompt action and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any.”

Under the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and, in case, some expert evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days.  Where the statute has permitted only 30 days for filing the Appeal, the delay, four times over the statutory period given for filing the Appeal, cannot be condoned until and unless some sufficient ground is shown.

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that sufficient grounds were not made out for condoning the inordinate delay of 124 days.  Dismissed.