ORDER

Per Rakesh Kapoor , President

An application for condo nation of delay in filing the present
complaint is pending disposal.   We have heard arguments advanced at
the bar and have perused the record.  The complainant had purchased a
vehicle from the respondents.   He had alleged that the vehicle was a
defective one and had a manufacturing defect.   He had also alleged
that due service was not accorded to him as was promised.    The
complainat had initially filed a petiotn on the aforesaid fact before
the MRTP commission (now known as Competition Appellate Tribunal).
This petition was filed in the year 2009.  However, on 3.8.2012. The
competition appellate tribunal passed the following order in the said
petition



 “ for considerable arguments, the learned counsel seeks leave to
withdraw this application to approach the appropriate authority under
the consumer protection act. He is allowed to withdraw with a leave.

After passing of the aforesaid order, the complainant had filed the
present complaint in this forum on 5.7.2013 and had also moved the
present application   for condonation of delay.     The basis on which
the present application for condonation of delay is filed is given  in
para 2 of the application which  is reproduced as under:



2.That due illness which was not cured by the medicines and no medical
treatment was available as the problem was of phsycho (mental illness
which caused mental disorder) , which was treated by the quack i.e
Tantrik.  It is further submitted that due to non –availability of the
previous counsel, as well as financial crunch , the complainant could
not file the consumer complaint before the Hon’ble Forum within
stipulated period.

The application is accompanied by an affidavit of the complaint.

The learned counsel for the Ops have forcefully contended that there
is no good ground on which the application for condonation of delay
can be allowed.  It has been pointed out that apart from his affidavit
, the complainant has led no other evidence in support of his
application.  It has been pointed out that there is no evidence
what-so-ever ,that the complainant was suffering from a mental illness
and was unable to file the present complaint  after withdrawal of the
petition from the Competition Appellate Tribunal. It has been pointed
out that no affidavit of the previous counsel has been filed to prove
that he was not available for the filing of this complaint. It has
been further pointed out that financial crunch of the complainant is
no ground on which condonation in delay can be sought.    We are in
agreement  with the  contention of the learned counsel for the Ops. As
pointed out earlier, the petition before the Competition Appeallate
Tribunal had been withdrawn on 31.8.2012.  The present complaint was
filed on 5.7.2013 i.e. after almost one year.   It was, therefore,
imperative on the part of the complainant to have explained each and
every day’s delay in filing the present. The complainant has failed to
lead any cogent evidence in this behalf.  The complainant has stated
that he was suffering from a financial crunch and was not able to file
the present complaint in time.    This ground is not available to the
complainant  under the law of limitation.  Even otherwise, the
complainant could have filed a simple complaint with a fee of Rs.
100/- which is charged for filing a complaint before the consumer
forum .  No cogent evidence has been led about the illness of the
complainant. The same is the case as regards the non-availability of
the earlier consel.  We, therefore, see no reason to condone the delay
in filing the present complaint .  The application of  condonation of
delay is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the
complainant is held to be not maintainable and is also dismissed.

File be consigned to record.





Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File
be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................