- (1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted.
(2.) The case of the appellant before us is that while passeing the order impugned in F.A. No. 64/2005, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi(hereinafter the National Commission , for short) did not hear the appellant s counsel on merits but, apart from holding that the appeal was barred by time by 240 days, it also decided the matter on merits.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and having perused the impugned order of the National Commission, we also do not find anything in the order to indicate that the appellant s counsel had been heard on merits. Even on the question of limitation, it appears that the office report had indicated that the First Appeal was barred by 62 days, but in the body of the order the appeal has been held to be barred by 240 days. There is also nothing to indicate as to how the said figure was arrived at by the National Commission despite the office report.;