Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member)
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that this matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The opposite party no.2 preferred the appeal against the order of the District Forum and along with it the application to condone the delay of 13 days was filed on the ground that the after getting the opinion of the advocate it had preferred the appeal and in the process a delay of 13 days ensued. Therefore the delay is sought to be condoned. The appeal was returned with certain objections which were to be rectified and the appeal to be represented within 10 days. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 1244 days on the premise that the appeal was returned for want of statutory deposit receipt and the same was informed to the Divisional Office at Ananthapur and that the file was forwarded to the Regional Office for filing the appeal whereby the branch office at Ananthapur could not take steps for depositing the amount and meanwhile the bundle was misplaced at Hyderabad.
 3. In the light of the fact that delay was 1270 days caused in representation of the appeal without any material whatsoever to substantiate the delay, we do not intend to order any notice to the respondent as no improvement could be made by the petitioner/appellant. The procedure contemplated under Civil Procedure Code or provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act for ordering notice before resolving the issue. The matters have to be resolved by applying principles of natural justice, equity, etc.
4. Evidently there has been whopping delay of 1270 days in resubmission of the appeal. The petitioner except stating that the bundle was misplaced at its office in Hyderabad, without specifying the dates thereof a general averment was made that the delay occurred was not intentional.
5. The Honble Supreme Court in âAnshu Agarawal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authorityâ reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) opined
âIt 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. With the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.â
6. The parties seeking relief has to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 15(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The discretion conferred on this court is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal that would not be a ground for condoning the delay. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal to consumer disputes. It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons given supported by material; and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the period allowed will not be exercised in a light and routine manner.
7. The respondents should not be denied the right accrued to them on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. If they receive summons or notices after a lapse of time they may be surprised and may not be able to comprehend as to when the litigation would come to an end. As was opined the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation is not sufficient for condoning the delay in favour of applicant. If it does not satisfy the ingredients , and that it does not reflect âsufficient cause then the application should be dismissed. When consistently routine and rigmarole facts are pleaded without any justification or proof condonation of exorbitant delay cannot be made.
8. When the delay is whopping 1270 days in resubmission of the appeal without any explanation and considering the fact that there is also delay in preferring the appeal and the same is not satisfactorily explained, we are of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed,
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.