- (1.) THE present Civil Misc. Application has been filed by the original opponent seeking condonation of delay caused in filing appeal against order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar in Complaint No. 125 of 2009 on 5.6.2010.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Haresh Parmar for Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned Advocate for the applicant.
(3.) ACCORDING to the applicant, the delay is of 361 days. The cause of delay is said to be administrative, in taking sanction, etc. for filing the appeal. As far as legal position is concerned with respect to condonation of delay, the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 1 CPJ 29, wherein it has been held that under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , a consumer Forum is under duty to dismiss the complaint filed beyond the period of limitation if sufficient cause of delay is not shown. The same view was adopted and applied in the case of appeals by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Dear India Builders and Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. S.J. Shah Mohan, 2010 1 CPJ 65(NC). It has further been laid down that the reasons for condonation of delay should be sufficient and convincing. In yet another case of HUDA v. Rajkumar,2010 2 CPJ 46(NC), the administrative or procedural delay in processing the case has not been considered to be a 'sufficient cause or 'ground'. In this case, admittedly, there is gross delay of 361 days. The reason for delay is stated to be administrative and procedural. Asalready discussed, this is not a sufficient and convincing reason for condonation of delay as prayed for. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER Civil Misc. Application No. 387 of 2011 is dismissed at the stage of admission.;