JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard. 2. There is inordinate delay in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. -2- The delay is explained in paras 3 and 4 of the application which are reproduced as under: “3.That the reason of the delay is that the applicant applied for the certified copy of the impugned order forthwith but the same order was supplied to the lawyer of the applicant on 13.12.2013. 4.That the applicant/revisionist approached the present counsel in the first week of March 2014 for getting the legal opinion, whether the case is fit for filing revision. Accordingly on 08.03.2014 opinion was given. Meanwhile the present counsel due to some reasons shifted his office from Kanpur to Sangam Vihar New Delhi and the case file of the applicant/revisionist was misplaced somewhere else in the office of the present counsel and the same was traced out in the last week of May, 2014 and thereafter the present revision was drafted and filed before the Hon’ble Commission. -3- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the Allahabad High Court Authority reported in Om Prakash Mishra vs. Union of India 2012 (1) Civil Court Cases 225 (Allahabad). In para 4 of this judgment, it has been mentioned that the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisiton, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. JT 1987 (1) SC 537: 1987(2) SCR 387 has dealt with the law relating to the delay condonation. He emphasized that under these circumstances the delay should be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed his own affidavit. The submissions made in the application for condonation of delay are vague, evasive and lead the Commission nowhere. It is not stated that when the office was shifted and the addresses of Khanpur and Sangam Vihar offices are conspicuously missing. No report was lodged with the police regarding the missing of the file. The explanation given by the petitioner is typically made out of whole cloth and fallacious. The petitioner has attempted to evade truth by a quibble. This is a glib and calculated statement. Such like defences are taken time and again by the advocates, which clearly show -4- negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the advocates themselves. It is not expected that the advocate will not care to keep the file properly. This story does not just stack up. The case is hopelessly barred by time. The Apex Court in a number of authorities has held that the delay must be properly explained in a case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. The Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 6. Similar view was also taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR -5- 1962 Supreme Court 361, Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC). The Supreme Court in a recent authority took the similar view in case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013; Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on19.11.2013. 7. It is thus clear that the case is barred by time. 8. Now let us turn to the merits of the case. Dharam Pal-petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. First of all, the petitioner-Dharam Pal did not have any insurable interest in this case. The original owner of this vehicle was one, Shri Rajinder Kumar. Shri Rajinder Kumar had insured the vehicle. The petitioner, Dharam Pal had purchased this vehicle from Rajinder Kumar on 13.8.2006. However, the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of Dharam Pal. He got it registered on 18.8.2006. The vehicle was stolen on 3.9.2006. 9. The intimation to the insurance company was given on 4.11.2006 when the claim of the vehicle was filed before the -6- insurance company. The FIR was lodged in time but the information was not given to the insurance company. Theft was committed on 3.9.2006 and the intimation was given on 4.11.2006, which was delayed by 60 days. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the intimation was not given promptly. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha- Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 made the relevant observation which runs as follows: “Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the -7- incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.” The revision petition is lame of strength; therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. | 
