1.        Head Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ appellant on limitation and on merits.

2.        On limitation she submitted that the appellant’s counsel informed about the impugned order dated 14.8.2014, in November, 2014 and then he was asked to get the certified copy of the order which was supplied on 15.12.2014 and then this appeal was filed on 20.1.2015  and therefore the delay of about 127 days in filing this appeal be condoned.

3.        On merits, she submitted that the appellant was the nominee in a bond insured by the respondent dated 6.10.1998. The bond holder died on 31.1.2000. The said policy was unknown to the appellant because it was kept in a secret place and it was located recently when the complainant was searching something in an old box which was kept in a very old store room at his residence. She further submitted that it was the duty of the respondent to send the maturity value of the policy in the year 2008. She further submitted that pursuant to the legal notice sent by the complainant, the respondent has paid Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant by a cheque dated 9.12.2014 and therefore the complaint has been wrongly dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that it was time barred.

4.        An absolutely vague and general statement was made in the complaint petition and the petition for condonation of delay to the effect that the nominee/ complainant was unknown to the bond. Only in the legal notice the complainant said that it was unknown to him because it was kept in secret place and recently when he was searching something in an old box which was kept in very old store room at the resident of the bond holder, he learnt about the bond. Such statement is also absolutely vague and general. In such circumstances the order under appeal passed by the learned District Forum rejecting the condonation petition on the ground that in view of the provision of section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act no ground has been made out to justify the inordinate delay of more than 13 years, cannot be faulted.

5.        Only because the respondent paid Rs.10,000/- after issue of legal notice, the long delay of more than 13 years cannot be condoned, otherwise it will amount to trapping the respondent who at least returned the amount deposited under the bond to the complainant/ nominee after receiving the legal notice saying that it was in full and final settlement. The complainant has to be satisfied with it.

6.        Further the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the long delay of more than four months in filing this appeal.

7.        In the facts and circumstances of this case, even if, the delay of more than four months in filing the appeal is ignored, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgement. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

                     Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.