Order No. 8 date: 02-06-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition filed on behalf of the Appellant.

By filing a petition it is stated by the Appellant that he obtained certified copy of the impugned order dated 25-02-2016 from the Ld. District Forum on 15-03-2016.  After obtaining certified copy of the impugned order, the same was given to the Ld. Junior counsel, who advised the Appellant to consult a Sr. Counsel and accordingly, the Complainant consulted a Sr. Counsel on 29-03-2016.  As the Appellant could not furnish all the requisite documents on that day, another meeting was fixed on 07-04-2016.  Thereafter, the conducting Ld. Counsel prepared Memorandum of Appeal on 25-04-2016 and the same was shown to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, who noticed certain discrepancies in the drafting and accordingly, instructed the conducting Ld. Counsel for another conference on 10-05-2016.  Thereafter, the Memorandum of Appeal was again prepared and resubmitted the same for approval on 30-05-2016.  The Sr. Advocate approved the modified draft on 12-06-2016 and handed over the same for filing and accordingly, the Memorandum of Appeal was ready for filing on 17-06-2016.  Ultimately, the Appeal was filed on 24-06-2016.

Be it mentioned here that one Mr. Rabin Das, introducing himself as a Court Clerk of the Ld. Advocate on record for the Appellant verified the W.O. against the delay condonation petition filed by the Appellant.  It, however, appears from the vakalatnama on record that Mr. Debajit Dutta, Ld. Advocate is representing the Respondent No. 1 and not the Appellant.  That being so, I am not inclined to take any cognizance of such a defective petition.

Be that as it may, let me consider the viability of the contentions of the Appellant in respect of delayed filing of this Appeal by 88 days, excluding the statutory period of limitation. 

On going through the petition for condonation of delay, following facts emerge:

Firstly, notwithstanding the impugned Order was passed on 25-02-2016, the Appellant/Complainant obtained certified copy of the same on 15-03-2016, i.e., after 19 days since passing of the impugned Order and significantly, no explanation has been given for such delayed collection of the certified copy of impugned Order.

Secondly, it is stated that as per the advice of the Ld. Advocate concerned, a Sr. Ld. Advocate was consulted in this regard on 29-03-2016, i.e., after 14 days.  Why it took a fortnight’s time for the Appellant to consult the concerned Ld. Sr. Advocate, there is no explanation in the petition under consideration.

Thirdly, according to the delay condonation petition, the conducting Ld. Advocate took 18 days (from 07-04-2016 to 25-04-2016) to prepare the draft Memorandum of Appeal. 

Fourthly, according to the Appellant, the Sr. Advocate after going through the draft Memorandum of Appeal instructed the concerned Ld. Advocate for further conference with the Appellant and the said meeting was arranged on 10-05-2016, i.e., after 15 days. 

Fifthly, the conducting Ld. Advocate took 20 days (from 10-05-2016 to 30-05-2016) to prepare the modified Memorandum of Appeal.

Sixthly, the Sr. Ld. Advocate took 13 days (from 30-05-2016 to 12-06-2016) to approve the modified Memorandum of Appeal.

Seventhly, it took 5 days (from 12-06-2016 to 17-06-2016) to make the Appeal ready.

Finally, after the Appeal was ready in all respects, the Appellant took 7 days (from 17-06-2016 to 24-06-2016) to file the Appeal before this Commission.

A cursory eye view, I think, is enough to discern that neither the Appellant nor his Ld. Advocate was at all diligent to file the Appeal within the statutory period of limitation.  It is the well settled position of law that Law aids the vigilant, not the negligent.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr, reported in 1970 AIR 898 observed that, “If a claim is barred under the Limitation Act, unless there are exceptional circumstances, prima facie it is a stale claim and should not be entertained by this Court”. 

The delay being not sufficiently justified, I am of view that the instant petition cannot be allowed.  The Appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed being barred by limitation.