1. This Appeal has a chequered history and it has been heard primarily on the reported delay of 2250 days in the filing of the Appeal. The Appellant has pleaded that this delay is of only 1497 which deserves to be condoned in the light of the background of the case, its merits and the circumstances that have led to the delay.
2. The Appeal has been filed against the order of the State Commission, Jharkhand dated 16.02.2018 in CC/33/2017 filed by the Appellant which is extracted hereinunder:

"Dated:16.02.2018

                                                                      ORDER

No body appears for the Complainant. Mr. Ashutosh Anand submits that he has already filed Written Statement and the Complainant is required to file evidences and/or further documents that may be required. However, today there is no appearance on behalf of the Complainant.

Let it be recorded that the Complainant is not appearing right from 06.11.2017 onwards. This was recorded on 23.01.2018 and subsequently on 06.02.2018 learned counsel for the Complainant made a magical appearance and prayed for one weeks’ time to file Rejoinder. We granted such time but today when the matter has been called out, the Complainant has chosen to go back to sleep. We are not inclined to go on waiting at the whims of the Complainant to appear whenever they chose to do. We accordingly, Dismiss this case for non-prosecution.”

3. It is for this reason that the delay of 2220 has been reported from the date of the said order.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also invited the attention of the matter to the facts and the background to urge that it was on account of an improper conduct of the Counsel of the Appellant that led to this delay, coupled with the intervention of the pandemic from March 2020 till 2022, the pendency of the Writ Petition filed before the Jharkhand High Court against the above quoted order and its dismissal on 10.01.2024 with a direction to file an appeal before this Commission and finally the health conditions of the Appellant coupled with the time taken for obtaining legal assistance to file the appeal before this Commission. Apart from this, learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Bench to the merits of the claim to contend that given the facts, the Complaint deserves to be appreciated on merits inasmuch as the Appellant has been denied a genuine claim arising out of an Insurance Policy.
5. The Complainant/Appellant owned a truck/trailer that was a goods carrier and had been insured with the Respondent Insurance Co., the duration whereof according to the Appellant was from 09.06.2015 to 08.06.2016. The vehicle collided with another trailer on the fateful day that is 15.03.2016 and the colliding vehicles caught fire resulting in the death of the drivers of the vehicles.  An FIR bearing case no.60/2016 was registered at Police Station, Tilaya, Jharkhand. The Complainant alleges that he staked his claim for the loss before the Insurance Co. but he was informed that his policy was forged and fake. Aggrieved, the Complainant’s son lodged a criminal complaint against the Insurance Agent and the branch Manager of the Insurance Co. before the learned CGM Hazaribag, Jharkhand on 29.08.2016 that was registered as Criminal Complaint No.1181/2016.
6. The Complainant further sent a legal notice to the Insurance Co. on 16.03.2017 contending that the Insurance policy had been reconstructed on 17.03.2016 itself and therefore there was no reason to inform that the policy papers were forged. The Appellant has pointed out that after receipt of this legal notice, the Insurance Co. repudiated the claim on 11.05.2017 by the following letter.

“Ref No. H2/311/115716

Date 11/05/2017

KAMESHWAR MEHTA

S/o-Sri Indo Mahto

Po/ Vill - Saraiya,

Via - Padma,

Dist-Hazaribag,

Jharkhand - 825411

Mob-9430782912, 7549047281

Dear Sir,

Ref: Claim No - 36618133

Policy No-97084277

Vehicle No-1H02AG 9315

Re: Non admissibility of Claim

We regret to note the reporting of loss pertaining to the captioned policy. It transpires from the claim records that vehicle bearing regn. No. JH02AG9315 (LPS 4018 TC) met with an accident on 15/03/2016 and the FIR was lodged in this regard on 15/03/2016 vide PS Case No 60/2016 at Tilayia police Station.

It is pertinent to mention here that the accident occurred due to head on collision with a Trailer coming from the opposite Direction as a result of which the above-mentioned vehicle caught fire and sustained heavy damages. The claim for the damages of the vehicle was intimated to our office after a delay of 56 days on 10/05/2016. In this context we wish to draw your attention to condition no 1 of the captioned policy whereby it is clearly mentioned that "Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender".

It is worth mentioning here that you have failed to comply with the aforesaid condition and we regret to inform you that the present claim is not admissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy and we treat this as a lost opportunity to serve you.

In case of any further clarification and or assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Authorised Signatory”

7. A perusal of the said letter would indicate that the repudiation has been made not on the ground of the papers being fake, but on the ground that the intimation and claim for damages was received after 56 days of the accident on 10.05.2016. It was therefore informed to the Complainant that there was a violation of the terms of the policy which requires an immediate information about any such incident, and the said provision having been violated and not complied with, the claim was not admissible.
8. Needless to mention that we have come across the decision of the Apex court in the Case of Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 612 where a delay in intimation to the Insurance Co. in cases arising out of accidents has been held not to be fatal for consideration of an insurance claim. It needs to be mentioned that the Insurance Co. before the State Commission has pleaded about the fake status of the policy which we shall refer to hereinafter but as indicated above, the repudiation letter nowhere mentions this reason. We have also come across the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Glada Power  & Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. Unite India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 14 SCC 161, Saurashtra Chemicals Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 19 SCC 7 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mudit Roadways, 2023 SCC OnLine 1532 where it has been held that if a reason pleaded for repudiation which is not stated in the repudiation letter, such a reason in that event will be presumed to have been waived by the Insurance Co.
9. Nonetheless after the repudiation, the Appellant/Complainant filed CC/33/2017 on 26.07.2017. Notices were issued on 31.07.2017 and the orders passed are quoted below:

"Dated : 31 Jul 2017

                                                 ORDER

Admit.

Issue notice to the O.Ps. by Speed Post. Requisite should be filed within two weeks.

Proof of service should be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Put up on 16.08.2017.

Dated : 20 Sep 2017

                                                                      ORDER

In view of service report notice on O.Ps. is accepted as valid.

Nobody appears for the parties.

Put up on 6.11.2017 to enable the O.Ps. to file written statement, if any.

Dated : 06 Nov 2017

                                                                                                                ORDER

W.S and vakalatnama on behalf of the O.Ps(No 1-4) have been filed.No body appears on behalf of the complainant.

Put up on 28.11.17 enabling the complainant to file W.S. if any.”

10. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Co. as noted in the above quoted order, the stand taken in paragraph 6,7 & 8, is as follows:

“6. That it is stated that the said policy at Annexure 8 has been obtained by the complaint /insured Kameshwar Mehta for the period 09.06.2015 to 08.06.2016. The said policy was fraudulently issued by an employee of the corporate agent of the opposite party. Thereafter, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 15.03.2016, whereupon, the insured met with the said employee of the corporate agent for the purpose of his claim at which point of time, on 17.03.2016, that is after the date of loss, the insured, in connivance with the said employee of the corporate agent of the opposite party, got issued another policy for the period 13.03.2016 to 12.03.2017. The fact that policy was issued after the date of loss was in the knowledge of the insured as is evident from the criminal complaint No. 1181/2016 annexed as Annexure 9 along with the complaint. Therefore, it is an admitted position of the complainant that, there was no valid policy existing as on the date of loss. The answering opposite parties have the knowledge that their said corporate agent has already initiated appropriate legal action and a complaint case has already been filed in the matter against their said employee. Both these policies are annexed along with this Reply as Annexure 1 and 2.

7. that the falsity and illegality of the Annexure 1 policy and connivance of the insured and the agent would be evident on perusal of both the Insurance policies as under:

i) The Premium payment mode is cash and paid on 17.03.16 itself i.e. premium paid after date of accident..

ii) The date of issuance is 17.03.16, however, the same has been ante-dated so as to cover the date of loss.

iii) No cover note number has been specified.

iv) No previous policy details have been given, while as per the complainant, this is second policy.

v) The IDV is Rs. 25,50,000/- while the vehicle was purchased more than a year back at Rs. 26,50,000/- and hence a minimum of 10% depreciation is / was applicable.

vi) etc.

8. That it is stated that from the own showing of the complainant it is evident that he has informed the answering opposite parties highly belatedly and as such the claim has rightly been repudiated. It is stated that in identical situation, the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in its judgment dt. 23.09.15 passed in REVISION PETITION NO. 3331 OF 2010 has held that repudiation on account of delay in intimation in accidental cases is justified”

11. The legal position may be contestable as observed above but we are not entering into the merits of the claim as the present appeal is to be considered on the issue of delay condonation.
    12. The case was then listed on 28.11.2017 and the following order was passed:
        
        "Dated : 28 Nov 2017
                                                                                                   ORDER

No body appears on behalf of complainant and Respondents however, put up on 11.12.2017.

Dated : 11 Dec 2017

                                                                                                                ORDER

No body appears.

Put up on 04.01.2018.

Dated : 04 Jan 2018

                                                                                                                ORDER

No body appears.

Put up before the Bench on 23.01.2018.

Dated : 23 Jan 2018

                                                                                                                ORDER

No body appears. Let it be recorded that nobody had appeared on the earlier dates also on behalf of either of the parties.

As last opportunity, let this matter be listed under the same heading on 06.02.2018.

Dated : 06 Feb 2018

                                                                                                                ORDER

Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Complainant, prays for and is granted one week time to file Rejoinder to the Written Statement.”

13. From the aforesaid description in the order sheet, it is apparent that no one was appearing on behalf of either of the parties more particularly the Complainants. However, on 06.02.2018 Mr. Jitendra Tripathi Counsel for the Complainant who had filed the complaint prayed for and was granted a weeks’ time to file rejoinder.
14. The next date was fixed 16.02.2018 and it is after noticing the aforesaid facts and the absence of the learned Counsel that the case was dismissed for want of prosecution which is the order impugned herein and has already been quoted hereinabove.
15. The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that when the Appellant enquired about the status of the case his Counsel kept on misinforming him.
16. In this regard, there are some paragraphs of the Appeal which need to be referred to. In paragraph 20, the Appellant states as follows:

"20.  …… . It is apposite to mention here that it is only when the Appellant received the copy of the Written Statement filed by the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein at his address vide post that he came to know that the Respondents have appeared in the Consumer Complaint way before on 06.11.2017. Upon receiving the Written Statement of the Respondents, the Appellant confronted his counsel and further asked him to represent him properly before the Court as he was not at all financially stable at that point of time due to the damaged Vehicle, to which the counsel assured that he will appear in the matter and will file the Rejoinder to the Written Statement on behalf of the Appellant. A True Copy of the order dated 11.12.2017, 04.01.2018 and 23.01.2018 passed by the Ld. State Commission in CC no. 33 of 2017 is annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE A 19(Colly.)”

17. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would demonstrate that the Appellant himself had personal knowledge of the proceedings which is further fortified by the fact as stated in paragraph 21 which is extracted hereinunder:

“21. That the Appellant in order to know the insights of the hearing, reached the office of the counsel in the morning around 10:00 A.M. but the Counsel asked him to stay outside the court room and he will appear and apprise the court and will further seek one week’s time to file the Rejoinder to the Written Statement. It is pertinent to mention here that after the matter was heard, the counsel again informed an imaginary date to the Appellant and further informed that the Court has granted a week’s time to file the Rejoinder to the Written Statement. A True Copy of the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Ld. State Commission in CC no. 33 of 2017 is annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE A-20”.”

18. Not only this paragraph 22 indicates that so far as the Appellant is concerned, he had been informed about a date which he describes as an imaginary date. The Appellant has not stated as to what that imaginary date was. Thus, this sort of averment of an imaginary date does not inspire confidence and seems to have been generated with a view to develop some excuse which would be evident from the facts narrated hereinafter. Paragraph 22 and 23 is extracted hereinunder:

“22. That on 16.02.2018, yet again the Counsel of the Appellant did not appear and as a result of which the Ld. State Commission, Jharkhand dismissed the Complaint bearing No. 33 of 2017 of the Appellant for non-prosecution vide its order dated 16.02.2018. Whereas, the Appellant not being a highly educated person having no knowledge of the procedures of the law was being improperly represented and exploited by his counsel for the reasons best known to him only.

23. That during March 2018 till February 2020, the Counsel of the Appellant kept on making one excuse or the other by stating that the Presiding Member is on leave or the Counsel for the opposite side is not available or the stenographer was not available, thereby keeping the Appellant under the impression that his matter is safe hands and is dealt with utmost professionalism and meticulously”

19. By this method, the Appellant has tried to afford an explanation uptill February 2020.
20. There is no day to day explanation or even any other explanation worth the name as to why the Appellant did not go to the Forum or contact his Counsel about any future date or dates being fixed in the complaint. There is not even a single word as to what he did and what steps were taken between March 2018 and February 2020.
21. This sudden leap from March 2018 to February 2020 remains unexplained and then the Appellant immediately couples this period with the Pandemic which intervened in March 2020. The Appellant then in paragraph 24 and 25 takes the shelter of the Covid which he explains it as follows.

“24. That during March 2020 till December 2022, the Counsel for the Appellant told the Appellant that the Courts and Tribunals are closed due to COVID19 and, therefore, his matter would not be taken up. It is pertinent to note that the Counsel for the Appellant kept on lying to the Appellant about his Complaint case rather than informing him that the Case had been dismissed due to non-prosecution so that the Appellant could take further steps. The Counsel also misled the Appellant about the Limitation Period, which was from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.

25. That during the period of January 2023 till February 2023, The Counsel told the Appellant that the courts have now resumed to function after CoVID-19, and the matter of the Appellant will be taken up in few months”

22. It is a matter of judicial notice that the Apex court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3/2020 and the orders passed therein from time to time had extended the period of limitation extending benefits till 28.02.2022 plus 90 days thereafter. The Appellant states that the same Counsel had informed the resumption of function of courts and the case would be taken up in a few months.
23. The explanation given thereafter is that the Appellant upon enquiring through a different Counsel came to know that his complaint had been dismissed long back in 2018. For this, the averment made in paragraph 26 is as follows:

“26. That on 03.03.2023, the Appellant, upon enquiring through a different counsel, came to know about the fact that his Complaint was dismissed long back in the year 2018 by the Ld. State Commission vide its order dated 16.02.2018. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an application to obtain the certified copy of the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Ld. State Commission, Jharkhand, in Consumer Complaint no. 33 of 2017. The Appellant also requested the Counsel to file a Complaint against the previous Counsel to suspend his license for indulging in malpractices. However, the Counsel advised him not to, stating that this is not a practice followed in Jharkhand as it would turn advocates against each other. He also said that no advocate would represent the Appellant if he approached the Bar Council of Jharkhand against the previous counsel”

24. A perusal of the said paragraph nowhere indicates as to who was that different counsel who informed him about the dismissal of the complaint in 2018. The name is nowhere disclosed and a plea has been taken about filing a complaint against the earlier Counsel before the Bar Council. To supplement this, additional documents have been filed through IA/8862/2024 and along with the same, a complaint against Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate, seems to have been generated before the Bar Counsel of Jharkhand which is signed by the Complainant/Appellant on 31.05.2024. The complaint therefore against the lawyer has been allegedly made during the pendency of the present Revision Petition which was filed on 15.04.2024 and also appears to have been done after orders were passed on 02.05.2024 calling upon the Appellant to given an explanation for the delay and argue the delay condonation application. The order dated 02.05.2024 is extracted hereinunder:

“Dated:02.05.2024

ORDER

First Appeal has been filed with a delay of 2220 as per calculations made by the Registry. The period of delay mentioned in IA No.6164/2024 for condonation of delay is 1497 days. Counsel for appellant clarifies that in his calculations Covid exempted period has been subtracted on the total period of the date of impugned order.

At his request, case is adjourned for the day to enable him to argue the case initially on the condonation of delay application, on the next date of hearing.   List on 6.6.2024.”

25. It is thereafter that IA/8862/2024 was placed and has been noted in the order dated 06.06.2024 which is extracted hereinunder:

“Dated:06.06.2024

ORDER

1.       IA/8862/2024 for placing on record additional documents is allowed and the said documents are taken on record.

2.       Issue notice to the respondent giving them four weeks’ time to file response to the FA as well as to the condonation of delay application filed vide IA/6164/2024 read with IA/8862/2024.

3.       Both sides are granted six weeks’ time to file brief of written arguments, as per Regulation 13, not exceeding 4 pages, duly referencing relevant documents on record, alongwith copies of case laws they wish to rely upon, if any, duly indexed, paginated, relevant paras marked and stating the law point(s) they wish to highlight from such case laws. Piecemeal/last minute submission of notes of arguments/copies of judgments at the time of final hearing will not be allowed.  Copies of notes of arguments/case laws etc., be shared simultaneously with the other side, under due acknowledgement.

4.       List for final hearing on 04.10.2024. On the next date matter shall be initially heard on the condonation of delay followed by the main case if considered necessary. IA/6165/2024 seeking exemption from filing certified /dim/typed copies of the impugned order/other annexure is rejected. Appellant is granted another one weeks’ time to file clearly readable/typed/translated copies of all relevant documents.”

26. It is thus evident that the complaint against the advocate has been filed after the filing of the Revision which is clearly an after thought as there is no explanation worth the name except making bald allegations in paragraph 26 quoted hereinabove without even giving the name of the subsequent Counsel.
27. The Complainant yet did not file any Appeal in spite of having come to know about the order as alleged by him on 03.03.2023. Another narrative has been set up by the Complainant in paragraph 27, 28 & 29 of the Appeal which is extracted hereinunder:

“27. That on 18.04.2023, the Appellant received the certified copy of the order dated 16.02.2018 from the Copying Branch of the Ld. State Commission, Jharkhand. Further, that after receiving the certified copy of the order dated 16.02.2018, the Appellant consulted a different counsel for his case and who informed the Appellant that the impugned order dated 16.02.2018 of Ld. State Commission can be challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand and that the Hon’ble High Court through a Writ Petition, can pass directions to the Ld. State Commission, Jharkhand to restore the Complaint of the Appellant.

28. That on 13.07.2023, the Appellant on insistence from his new counsel approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand by way of a Civil Writ Petition bearing no. 3916 of 2023 praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 16.02.2018, passed by the Ld. State Commission, Jharkhand which dismissed the Complaint of the Appellant on account of non-prosecution. A True Copy of the W.P(C) bearing no. 3916 of 2023 filed by the Appellant before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand is annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE A-21”.

29. That the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, vide its order dated 10.01.2024 disposed of the Writ Petition bearing No. 3916 with a direction to the Petitioner/Appellant herein to prefer an Appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was received by the Appellant vide a Certified Copy on 22.01.2024”

28. It is therefore evident that the Appellant instead of seeking his legal remedy of filing an Appeal under the statute preferred to file a Writ Petition before a Constitutional Court which he contends was on the insistence of his new Counsel before the High Court. Once again the name of the new Counsel is nowhere reflected. Nonetheless, a copy of the Writ Petition has been brought on record but the Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 10.01.2024 by the following order.

“Dated:10.01.2024

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in Consumer Case No.33 of 2017.

3. Admittedly, whatever be the nature of the order, the same is appelable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

4. Considering the fact that the order is appelable and there is statutory provision of appeal, I am not inclined to pass any order in this writ petition.

5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner, if so advise, to prefer an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.”

29. Learned Counsel for the Complainant has urged that this bonafide pursuit of litigation before the High Court and the period consumed therein should also be excluded, for which he has relied on the decision Purni Devi & Anr. Vs. Babu Ram & Anr. (2024) 4 SCR 37.
30. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has then urged that not only this and the misstake on the part of the Counsel by not appearing before the Court concerned should not be a ground to deny access to justice and such default on the part of the Counsel should be condoned for which reliance was place on Rafiq & Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr., (1981) 2 SCC 788 paragraph 3 which is extracted hereinunder:"
    
    "3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe, we do not know, he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs 200 should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr A.K. Sanghi.”

31. A perusal of the said judgment would indicate that the slackness on the part of the Advocate was in respect of the preparation, drafting and filing of the affidavit that was sworn on 29.10.2018 and was not presented to the Court till 12.11.1980. That was a case where in the absence of the affidavit, the case had been disposed of as the advocate was not present and the Appeal had been dismissed. It is in this context that the omission or misdemeanor of the lawyer of the agent was held that it could not be a reason to non-suit the litigant. The said judgment was again considered by the Apex Court in several other cases that has been discussed in Secretary, Deptt. of Horticulture & Anr. Vs. Raghu Raj, (2008) 13 SCC 395 paragraph 23, 24 & 25 are extracted hereinunder:
    
    "23. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an advocate has no right to remain absent from the court when the case of his client comes up for hearing. He is duty-bound to attend the case in court or to make an alternative arrangement. Non-appearance in court without “sufficient cause” cannot be excused. Such absence is not only unfair to the client of the advocate but also unfair and discourteous to the court and can never be countenanced.
    24.  At the same time, however, when a party engages an advocate who is expected to appear at the time of hearing but fails to so appear, normally, a party should not suffer on account of default or non-appearance of the advocate.
    28.From the case law referred to above, it is clear that this Court has always insisted on advocates to appear and argue the case as and when it is called out for hearing. Failure to do so would be unfair to the client and discourteous to the court and must be severely discountenanced. At the same time, the Court has also emphasised doing justice to the cause wherein it is appropriate that both the parties are present before the court and they are heard. It has been noted by the Court that once a party engages a counsel, he thinks that his advocate will appear when the case will be taken up for hearing and the court calls upon the counsel to make submissions. It is keeping in view these principles that the Court does not proceed to hear the matter in absence of the counsel.”

32. The said ratio is clearly distinguishable on facts and therefore not attracted on the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel has then urged that in view of the order of the High Court dated 10.01.2024 the delay should be treated to have been condoned as the Appellant has been permitted/directed to file the appeal before this Commission.
33. The Appeal has been therefore contested on behalf of the Appellant and the learned Counsel has urged that this is one of those cases where the merits of the case also deserve to be taken into account and the length of delay should not be a hurdle keeping in view the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 1878 where the words “sufficient cause” have been discussed and after taking notice of several judgments, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar Vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 has been quoted with approval. Learned Counsel therefore submits that on all counts the appeal deserves to be entertained and the impugned order deserves to be set aside with direction to restore the complaint to be heard, tried and decided on merits.
34. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that there is no explanation worth the name from 16.02.2018 till February 2020 as discussed hereinabove. In the absence of any such explanation, the Complainant does not deserve any further indulgence who waited till 2023. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the period during the Pandemic could have been excluded, yet the description about an imaginary date, about a subsequent Counsel without his name and without disclosing as to who insisted upon filing the Writ Petition before the High court, these explanations are also clearly designed to cover the huge inordinate delay that remains unexplained. It is correct that there should not be a pedantic or an injustice oriented approach but at the same time any explanation afforded or cause shown should conform to rationality, common sense and pragmatism. The power to condone a delay is not a rigid rule of law and is a discretion vested in the present case on the tribunal by a statute to be exercised judiciously, in order to prevent any grave miscarriage of justice. The power to condone delay should not be refused on mere technicalities and it should not be an impediment in the passage of doing substantial justice. Reference can be had to the celebrated decision reported in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107  and the judgment in the case P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556 but there should be an explanation that a litigant had been prevented by sufficient cause from not approaching the Forum. The distinction between a good cause and a sufficient cause was explained by the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors AIR 1964 SC 993. The principles for condoning a delay have also been explained in the decision reported in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649. Apart from these decisions, the distinction between delay and inordinate delay and other factors have been discussed in  State of Uttranchal & Anr Vs. shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors. AIR 1941 Privy Counsel 6, 1987 (Supplement) SCC 339 and (2013) 12 SCC 179.
35. The guidance thorugh reasonable diligence and applying the larger public interest as enshrined in the principle “Interest Reipublicae Up Sit Fins Litium” should be the benchmark for a judicious approach. On a conspectus of the aforesaid law as also the law cited on behalf of the learned Counsel the Appellant it is not only the length of the delay but also the background of the case as indicated above but on facts it is difficult for this tribunal to condone an unexplained and inordinate delay from 2018 to 2020 for two years and then again from 2022 till 2024. Putting the blame on the lawyer entirely may also not be worth appreciating when the Complainant himself was watching the case before the Consumer Forum, had also approached the High Court and was regularly in the contact of lawyers. Given the overall circumstances, we do not find this to be a fit case to treat the reasons given by the Appellant as sufficient cause much less a plausible cause to condone the delay. Consequently, the delay condonation application and the Appeal are hereby dismissed.