AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an application for condonation of gross delay in filing the present appeal. The order of the District Forum, Hisar was rendered way back on the 14th of March, 1991. The appeal was preferred after nearly four months on the 12th of July, 1991 far beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days under Section 15 of the Act. A sketchy ground for the condonation of delay is stated to be that a fire broke out in the premises of the applicant and the records were partly burnt and that the said fact also finds mention in the impugned order. A reference to the letter would show that the alleged fire broke out on the 11th of December, 1990. The order under appeal was thus rendered more than three months after the alleged date of fire. Patently enough the earlier fire in the premises if any, has not the least relevance or excuse for not preferring an appeal against the order rendered much later than the said date. The primal ground for condonation has thus not the least symbolance on merits.
THE other grounds which could hardly be pressed seriously is that the applicant is aware of the procedure and technicalities regarding the Consumer Protection Act as the same is new and the matter was delayed. It is trite learning that ignorance of law and in particular of the provisions of limitation can possible provide no excuse. This apart the Act" has now been enforced for more than four years and the pretends that it is new can hardly hold water. In view of the above, we find no merit in this application for condonation of delay which is hereby rejected. Inevitably the appeal must also fail against the bar of limitation and is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.