IMARAN KHAN Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONG with the appeal appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of 79 days in filing the appeal. The only reason stated in para No.3 of the application are as under: -

(2.) IT has been expressly provided in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that any person aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of period of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the stipulated period. The expression 'sufficient cause' has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, as it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time while examining the question of condonation of delay, it has to be kept in mind that it is the duty of the competent authority to record satisfaction of the explanation submitted as to whether it is reasonable and satisfactory which is essential pre -requisite for condonation of delay. It is equally well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity as well as on the ground of generosity.

(3.) AS regards the ground taken in the application it would transpire that totally vague and ambiguous assertion has been made. Admittedly before the District Forum, complainant was represented through his Counsel Mr. M.S. Khan, Advocate and therefore, the version of the complainant that he was not aware of the limitation period for filing the appeal, is not acceptable. If complainant was not aware about this limitation period, he can contact his Counsel. Even otherwise also, the ignorance of law does not extend any benefit to the appellant for condonation of delay. The reasons stated in the application taking as prima facie does not make out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. While dealing with the question of condonation of delay, it is the heavy duty on the competent authority to have seen the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. But in the present case, the ground stated in the application cannot constitute sufficient cause so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the application is rejected.