ORDER NO. 4 DT. 24.08.12

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

          The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of an application for condonation of delay in filing the present petition of complaint, which has been filed out of time by about 190 days.

          The main contention of the application, in brief, is that the complainant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the acts of the OP/Bank, which has already caused serious injury to the complainant in terms of money value, initially lodged a complaint against the OP/Bank before the banking ombudsman on 30.3.09.  According to the complainant, the banking ombudsman by its letter dt. 30.6.09 directed the complainant to make a complaint to the redressal officer of the OP/Bank.  In compliance to such direction the complainant approached the redressal officer of the OP, but with no avail.  Finding no other alternative the complainant once again approached the banking ombudsman to consider and adjudicate the grievances of the complainant.  But as the banking ombudsman did not accommodate the complainant in this regard, the complainant approached an advocate, who advised the complainant to lodge a complaint under Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant accordingly furnished all relevant and connected papers to the said advocate.  But, unfortunately, after a prolonged period some time at the end of March, 2012 the said advocate informed the complainant that all the relevant papers supplied by the complainant have been lost/mis-placed from his custody.  It is the further case of the complainant/petitioner that after searching those papers could be found from the chamber of the said advocate, who finally drafted the petition of complaint, but by that time a delay of about 190 days has already been caused.  According to the Complainant/Petitioner for such delay the complainant is not responsible, nor there is any intentional lacuna or laches on the part of the complainant in this regard and considering all these grounds the delay may kindly be condoned and the complainant be permitted to proceed with the petition of complaint.

          At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate for the complainant/Petitioner has submitted before us that from the materials on record it would be evident that there is no intentional laches or lacuna on the part of the complainant in preferring the present complaint wherein there is a delay of about 190 days.  According to the Ld. Advocate, from the very beginning the complainant knocked the doors of the banking ombudsman and also the redressal officer of the OP/Bank, but with no avail and thereafter the complainant had been to the advocate from who custody all the relevant papers were lost and after a prolonged search those papers could be traced and finally the petition of complaint has been drafted and filed, but by that time a delay of 190 days has already been caused.  Obviously the complainant is in no way responsible for such unwanted delay and there is no intentional laches or lacuna on the part of the complainant for such delay and accordingly, the same may kindly be condoned.

          Ld. Advocate for the OP while countering such submissions has submitted before us that it is incumbent upon the complainant/Petitioner to explain each and every day’s delay and in this regard, the complainant has utterly failed.  According to the Ld. Advocate, the Limitation Act does not provide and/or permit a party to extend the time-limit by putting forward some wild and imaginary grounds and in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence in support of the complainant’s petition for condonation of delay, specially the delay caused by the advocate as described in the petition for condonation of delay, question of granting any relief to the complainant does not arise at all and under such circumstances, the petition for condonation of delay should be rejected. 

          We have duly considered the submissions so put forward by the Ld. Advocates for both sides and have also gone through the materials on record including the petition for condonation of delay and find that in this case the complainant has tried to put forward a case to the effect that initially the complainant tried to vindicate his grievances before the banking ombudsman, but being failed to persuade the banking ombudsman to adjudicate the matter, approached the redressal officer of the OP/Bank on the direction of the banking ombudsman.  But there also he did not get any relief and then the petitioner approached the banking ombudsman for the second time, but as the banking ombudsman did not accommodate the complainant, the complainant had to approach the Ld. Advocate, where there was some unintentional delay and finally the petition of complaint has been filed 190 days after the prescribed time-limit.  In this regard, we find much substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the OP, according to whom, there is no reasonable explanation for the delay caused in preferring the present petition of complaint.  The Complainant/Petitioner having failed to substantiate the grounds so preferred in the petition for condonation of delay, we are unable to accept the submissions so put forward on behalf of the complainant/Petitioner and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petition for condonation of delay.  The complainant having utterly failed to account for and/or explain the delay caused in filing the present petition of complaint, the petition for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.

          Hence, it is ORDERED that the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed but without any order as to cost.  Consequently, the petition of complaint stands dismissed being barred by limitation.