Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Adv. A. J. Gondwal is present on behalf of the Applicant/ Complainant. Adv. S. R. Singh is present on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Opponent.
[2] Consumer Complaint bearing No.192 of 2010 is filed after a delay on 220 days, and therefore, this application for condonation of delay. The application is vehemently opposed by the Opponent stating that the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are neither adequate nor satisfactory to condone the delay.
[3] It is an insurance claim lodged against shortage of goods delivered at the destination port total amounting to 4321 bags. Loss was immediately reported to the Opponent/Insurance Company on 27/3/2008. The Opponent/Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 3/11/2008. It is further stated on behalf of the Applicant/Complainant that one Capt. Eric A. D’ Souza, who was looking after the claim in question, left the Complainant’s Company on 30/7/2009 and thereafter, Mr. Agustinha Nicolau Fernandes took over the charge and in that process delay in taking decisions occurred and this resulted in delay in filing a consumer complaint. Beyond this nothing has been stated to explain the delay.
[4] Cause of action for filing a consumer complaint arose on 27/3/2008, which resembles to the event of loss of bags (since no other date is mentioned of actual loss). Therefore, a consumer complaint ought to have been filed on or before 27/3/2010. Therefore, the period of delay is rightly calculated by the Applicant/ Complainant.
[5] No doubt, while considering an application for condonation of delay, one need not ask for explaining the delay of each day but reasonably the delay is to be explained in a satisfactory manner reflecting that all the while the Applicant/Complainant was diligent in prosecuting the cause in a process to file a consumer complaint. In the instant case, no such explanation is coming forward from the Applicant/Complainant. Well before lapse of period of limitation, Mr. Agustinho Nicolau Fernandes took over the charge, and therefore, a vague statement on behalf of the Applicant/ Complainant that said Mr. Agustinho Nicolau Fernandes had newly taken over the charge and as such, the process of decision making was delayed and the delay occurred, cannot be accepted as a satisfactory explanation. It is also mentioned on behalf of the Applicant/Complainant that until a legal advice was taken, the Applicant/Complainant was under an impression that the period of limitation would start from the date of repudiation i.e. 3/11/2008. This ground is also not available offering any satisfactory explanation since the period of limitation lapsed much after a considerable time after the letter of repudiation was received by the Applicant/Complainant and during the period when Capt. Eric A. D’ Souza was in-charge of the affairs.
[6] Thus, we find that the delay is not at all satisfactorily explained and there is no reason to condone the same. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Miscellaneous Application bearing No.645 of 2010, seeking condonation of delay in filing Consumer Complaint No.192 of 2010 hereby stands rejected. Consequently, the consumer complaint also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced & dictated on 17th August, 2011.
