1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Salma Noor, Member

1.             The present appeal is filed against the order dated 01.06.2013 in complaint case no. 791/2012 passed by the District Forum (North West) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi titled as Anwar Hussain Vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company.

2.            The District Forum passed an award in favor of the complainant and directed the OP/appellant as under:

i.               Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 6,03,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Three Thousands Only) (after deducting 10% of the IDV on account of depreciation) along with interest @ 10% from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 01.06.2012 till payment.

ii.            Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.                 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has filed this appeal along with application for condonation of delay.

4.               We have heard. Ashutosh Kaushik, counsel for the appellant and Sh. A.K. Tripathi, Counsel for the respondent on the application.

5.                 It is admitted fact by the appellant that there is a delay of 119 days in preferring this appeal. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/OP had no knowledge of the order of the case therefore he was unable to contest the case.

6.                 Further submission of the appellant is that after receiving the impugned order he approached the District Forum to procure a copy of complaint filed by the complainant and the case file was not traceable at the District Forum and it took quite some time to trace the file and this whole activity took a lot of time.

7.               It is apparent from the record (impugned order) that the appellant did not appear before the District Forum despite service. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, the appellant has no defence on merits. It is also admitted fact that there is a delay of 119 days in filing the present appeal. This speaks about the careless negligent attitude of the appellant in pursuing the present case.

8.             It is well settled that ‘sufficient cause’ with regard to condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact.

                  “In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

                “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then that Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant”. 

11.           Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;

                “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of which is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence”.

12.              In “R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 2009(2) Scale 108”, it has been observed.

                 “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition”.

               The appellant has failed to substantiate its case for presenting the appeal after such a long delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected the appeal is also dismissed as barred by the limitation at the admission stage.

                 FDR, if any, be released in favour of appellant be released as per rule.

                  File be consigned to record room.