Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member)
1. The petitioner/opposite party no.1 preferred the appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum directing the opposite parties to refund `6,85,000/- with interest, compensation of `5,000/- and costs of `2,000/- along with it filed the above application u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act to condone delay of 353 days.
2. It is averred in the petition that the Dist. Forum has erroneously directed it to pay the amount with interest, compensation and costs though no notices were served on the petitioner firm in C.C.No.222 of 2011. The District Forum has ordered substituted service by way of publication in the newspaper âNeti Manadesham which is an unknown and obscure newspaper and as such the petitioner could not notice the same and appeared before the District Forum. Subsequently after passing of the order the respondent no.1 filed E.A.No.15 of 2012 for execution of the order. However on 8.8.2012 due to ill health the counsel for the petitioner could not represent the case before the District Forum and in the process delay was ensued.
3. Though notice was served on the respondent, he did not choose to file counter.
4. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are justifiable grounds to condone delay?
5. In â Anshu Agarawal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authorityâ reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) the Honble Supreme Court stressed the need to consider the object in Consumer Protection Act while deciding application how to condone delay and held that:
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 Honble Supreme Court in â Lanka Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradeshâ reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363 held:
âreasonable exercise of discretionary power and discretionary power should be exercised systematically informed by reasons. Liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not over-ride substantial law of limitation, especially when court finds no justification for delayâ.
7.  The statutory period has been provided only in order to see that the parties have enough time to secure relevant authorization or sanction etc. There is nothing new in these grounds and is being used in all cases whatever is the period of delay. When consistently routine and rigmarole facts are pleaded without any justification or proof condonation of exorbitant delay cannot be made.
8. We may also state herein that the respondent should not be denied the right accrued to him on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. If he receives summons or notices after a lapse of time he 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. It is both re-presentation delay as well as delay to condone delay in preferring the appeal. In the light of the fact that the delay is deliberate we do not intend to condone.
9. In the result the petition is dismissed consequently the appeal is rejected. No costs.