Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Shakil, learned counsel, appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1. The opposite party No. 2 is the Investigator engaged by the applicant insurance company. It is submitted by Ms. Choudhury that the said opposite party No. 2 is not a necessary party. Under such circumstances, Registry shall strike out the name of opposite party No. 2 from the cause title of this application along with the connected appeal.
As the opposite party No. 1 is represented and a written objection was also filed against the delay condonation application, as such, and as consented by both the learned counsel, we are taking up this application for its disposal.
This is an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay of 88 days in preferring the connected appeal, against the judgment dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned District Commission, Cachar at Silchar, in Con. Case No. 30/2017.
In order to support the grounds leading to sufficient cause to condone the delay, Ms. Choudhury submits that after impugned judgment was passed on 28-09-2018, the certified copy of the said order was applied by the counsel for the applicant on 01-11-2018 and the same was received on 02-11-2018. Accordingly, the counsel sent the certified copy along with his opinion to the Divisional Office at Silchar of the applicant on 15-11-2018 where after the entire case record was sent to the Regional Office at Guwahati on 23-11-2018. On receipt of the same on 26-11-2018, an opinion was obtained from the panel advocate of the Gauhati High Court and the advocate submitted his opinion on 10-12-2018. On the basis of the said opinion, necessary papers were sent to the conducting counsel on 18-12-2018 to file an appeal. While doing so, the said conducting counsel having not found the copy of complaint petition and the depositions along with some exhibits, sought for the same from the counsel at Silchar on 7-1-2019 and after receipt of the documents sought for, appeal was placed before this Commission for filing. On scrutiny by the Registry, the Demand Draft issued by the Regional Office of the applicant was found to be erroneous and as such, the same had to be sent back, where after a fresh Demand Draft was handed over to the conducting counsel which was finally submitted to the Registry of this Commission on 24-1-2019 and during the whole process, there was a delay of 88 days in preferring the connected appeal.
On the basis of the said grounds as stated above, Mr. Choudhury fairly submits that the grounds are sufficient to condone the delay, in as much as, the same does not show any negligent attitude on the part of the applicant.
The said submission of Ms. Choudhury is vehemently objected to by Mr. Shakil on the ground that the negligence is very much apparent from the pleadings in as much as, there cannot be delay of 88 days in filing the connected appeal when the applicant insurance company has its own legal machinery manned by competent Law Officer. Accordingly, it is the contention of Mr. Shakil that due to the negligence on the part of the applicant, the causes shown does not fall within the definition of sufficient cause.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Though we cannot brush aside the submission made by Mr. Shakil, however, upon consideration of the submission of Ms. Choudhury, the same are to some extent pragmatic and if there was an endevour on the part of the applicant, the same could have been avoided. However, the delay of 88 days, if condoned, shall not prejudice the opposite party.
We are satisfied that the cause for the delay as submitted falls within the ambit of scope of term sufficient cause within the purview of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, delay is condoned.
Misc. Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
