Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As there is delay in filing the complaint, the complainant has filed this application for delay condonation. According to the complainant, he paid the amount to the opponent for the course conducted by the opponent. He joined the ship on 1st April, 2010. But, the same ship sunk in the month of October-2010. He approached the opponent and requested for new job. But no action was taken by the opponent. As per application, it was necessary to file the complaint before October-2012. Therefore, he approached advocate Shri Baliram V.Kamble in the month of January-2013. The learned advocate Shri Kamble was engaged in the month of January-2013 and got married on 21st February, 2013. Advocate Shri Kamble prepared the complaint and duly registered with Notary on 21st March, 2013 but due to inconvenience of advocate Shri Kamble he was unable to file complaint therefore there was delay. The complaint is filed on 20th June, 2013. Thus, there is delay in filing the complaint beyond the control of the complainant. Therefore, he has filed this application for condonation of delay.
2) The application is opposed by the opponent. According to the opponent, delay is not properly explained. The reason given by the complainant for delay is not proper. The complainant could engage other advocate. The complainant was negligent therefore delay can not be condoned.
3) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for delay condonation ? | No |
3) | What Order? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- In the application itself, the complainant had stated that the ship was sunk in the month of October-2010 and it was necessary to file complaint before the October-2012. It shows that the complainant was knowing about the period of two years of limitation. He approached advocate Shri Kamble in the month of January-2013 i.e. after three months. Advocate Kamble was busy in his marriage. Therefore, he could not file complaint. However, he prepared the complaint in the month of March-2013 but the complaint is filed in the month of June-2013. No reason is given why the complaint was not filed in the month of March itself when it was prepared by advocate Shri Kamble. In fact, advocate Shri Kamble was knowing that he is busy in his own marriage. Therefore, it was necessary for him to advice the complainant to engage other advocate. In spite of knowing his busy schedule, advocate Shri Kamble kept the documents with him and caused loss to the complainant. The conduct of Shri Kamble is against the moral ethics of advocate. Shri Kamble, Adv. had filed affidavit on record admitting that complainant approached him in the month of January-2013 but he kept the papers with him upto June-2013. He had filed this complaint on 20th June, 2013. The present application is filed by advocate Shri Kamble and arguments were submitted by him. He has submitted that complainant should not suffer due to mistake of the advocate. It is true that litigant should not suffer for the mistake of advocate but advocate Shri Kamble himself committed mistake and still continued with the brief and is conducting the matter without giving proper explanation for not filing the complaint immediately after receiving papers from the complainant. Busy in his own marriage is not the sufficient cause to an advocate for keeping the papers with him for six months. Thus, there is apparent negligence of advocate Shri Kamble. At this juncture, we would like to rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3204 of 2013 in the complaint of Bulandsdhahar Development Authority –Versus- Jagannath Singh Tyagi decided on 30th September, 2013. In this judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has discussed the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and laid down as under :
“The petitioner has failed to give any proper justification for the long delay except that file was moved office to office and table to table. There is no explanation why, if Legal Advisor was suffering from medical problems due to which he could not done office work properly, an alternate arrangements were not made. The petitioner has failed to give day to day justification with dates as also “Sufficient Cause” for condoning the delay of 101 days ”
5) In the instant complaint before us also, the complainant could have approached to other advocate. It was necessary for advocate Shri Kamble to advice the client to engage other advocate, instead of it, he kept the papers with him for six months and caused loss to his litigant. In view of the above cited judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, complainant is not entitled for the condonation of delay. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
2) Consequently the consumer complaint stands dismissed.
3) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
4) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 3rd February, 2014
