ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 06.06.2017 passed by Learned District Forum Solan in M.A No.03/2017 title Bhagat Ram vs. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.whereby application filed by complainant under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was dismissed. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Bhagat Ram filed application under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for condonation of delay in filing subsequent consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complaint filed former consumer complaint No.56 of 2014 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned District Forum Shimla (H.P). It is pleaded that learned District Forum Shimla on dated 27.05.2016 held that learned District Forum Shimla has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide consumer complaint. Learned District Forum returned consumer complaint to the complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum. Thereafter complainant filed subsequent consumer complaint before learned District Forum Solan H.P and also filed application under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for condonation of delay in filing the subsequent consumer complaint. It is further pleaded in the application that applicant could not file present consumer complaint in time because applicant was not keeping good health for a long period. It is further pleaded that applicant is the sole bread earner of family and he has to look after his family members and old aged parents. It is pleaded that delay was not intentional but bonafide. Prayer for condonation of delay sought under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that long delay of nine months in filing consumer complaint is not explained properly. It is pleaded that delay was intentional and not bonafide in nature. Prayer for dismissal of application under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the application filed under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum did not give any opportunity to appellant to prove controversial fact of delay by way of affidavits and committed material procedural irregularity and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Appellant filed application for condonation of delay in filing subsequent consumer complaint. It is well settled law that matter of condonation of limitation is a mixed matter of facts and law. Opposite parties have refuted facts mentioned in the application. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum was under legal obligation to give opportunity to appellant to prove controversial facts of condonation of delay strictly as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by way of affidavits. 8. As per section 24-A (2) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint could be entertained after a period specified in sub section-1 if the complainant satisfy the District Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the consumer complaint within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. State Commission is of the opinion that word sufficient cause is a matter of controversial facts and State Commission is of the opinion that existence of sufficient cause is the condition precedent for exercise of discretion by learned District Forum. It is well settled law that sufficient cause is mixed question of law and fact as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. It is also well settled law that in quasi judicial proceedings three types of matters are listed i.e. (1) Matters of law only (2) Matters of facts only (3) Matters of mixed question of law and facts only. It is held that matter of condonation of delay is a mixed matter of law and facts. 9. State Commission has also perused the order sheet of learned District Forum. It is held that matter of condonation of delay is a mixed matter of law and facts. 9. State Commission has also perused the order sheet of learned District Forum. Learned District Forum after obtaining response from opposite parties directly listed the matter of condonation of limitation for final consideration and thereafter final order was passed by learned District Forum upon application filed under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned District Forum did not obtain evidence of appellant by way of affidavits in order to prove sufficient cause upon controversial fact of condonation of delay. It is held that learned District Forum has committed material procedural irregularity which has caused grave miscarriage of justice to appellant. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and is in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. It is held that learned District Forum has committed material procedural irregularity by way of not giving opportunity to appellant to adduce evidence qua controversial facts relating to application filed for condonation of delay. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of appeal on merits until material procedural irregularity committed by learned District Forum is not rectified. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 11. In view of findings upon point No.1 above order of learned District Forum dated 06.06.2017 announced in M.A. No.03/2017 title Bhagat Ram vs. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and application under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is remitted back to learned District Forum Solan for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Learned District Forum would obtain evidence of the appellant by way of affidavits relating to controversial facts pleaded in application filed under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thereafter learned District Forum would obtain evidence of opposite parties by way of affidavits upon application filed under section 24-A of 12. Consumer Protection Act 1986 and thereafter learned District Forum would obtain rebuttal evidence of appellant and thereafter learned District Forum would decide the application filed under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 afresh strictly in accordance with proved facts and law. Consumer Protection Act 1986 and thereafter learned District Forum would obtain rebuttal evidence of appellant and thereafter learned District Forum would decide the application filed under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 afresh strictly in accordance with proved facts and law. Learned District Forum would dispose of entire matter within two months after receipt of file because proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are time bound proceedings. Observations would not effect the merits of the consumer complaint in any manner. Matter be listed before learned District Forum Solan H.P expeditiously for disposal in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.