1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 31.07.2025, passed by the learned Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (for short the 'State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 1243 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application being IA/7557/2026/2026.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 was communicated by the Advocate of the appellant company to the then legal officer but the said legal officer tendered her resignation on 03.06.2025. She did not inform or take suitable action against the final order dated 31.07.2025. The appellant company came to know about the impugned order in the last week of April, 2026 through another Panel lawyer, who informed the company about the execution proceedings having been initiated by the respondent / complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent / complainant have also filed an appeal and in that appeal notice has already been issued and is pending for hearing. Therefore, the delay may be condoned.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. There is a reported delay of 297 days and as per the appellant there is a delay of 300 days.

6. The reason given for condonation of delay is the resignation of a legal officer. This is not sufficient & convincing ground for condonation of such a huge delay. The appellant is a company having sufficient wherewithal.

7. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

8. Admission of an appeal or issuance of notice in appeal filed by the respondent / complainant cannot be a ground for condonation of such a huge delay.

9. In Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054- 2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

                          "We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."

In Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2014 (11) SCC 351, it was held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under:

7. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts.

The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit FinisLitium" (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

8. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932 wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law."

9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held as under:-

                          "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."

10. In the aforementioned circumstances, the delay condonation application is hereby rejected consequently the present first appeal is also dismissed at the stage of admission itself, being time-barred.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Let the file be consigned in the record room after necessary action.