Order No.2

Ld. Advocate for the complainant/petitioner is present.

The application dated 14/03/2024 u/s 69 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 is taken up for hearing.

Perused. Considered.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant/petitioner.

It appears that the complainant being an old ailed person could not file the instant complaint case within the period of limitation. Due to his illness he was unable to contact his Advocate till 30/04/2023. Thereafter he handed over his case to his advocate with necessary directions.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that due to serious inconvenience in her family she could not file the case immediately after accepting the same from the complainant.

In this regard Ld. Advocate for the complainant refers to SUSHILA NARAHARI AND OTHERS – Versus – NANDAKUMAR AND ANOTHER wherein Hon’ble Apex Court condoned the delay in filing application which occurred due to dereliction of duty on the part of the Advocate.

It is well settled that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter  being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Explanation of delay must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner.

In our considered view, the complainant has been able to explain sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing complaint before the Commission.

Therefore, the application u/s 69 of the C.P. Act,2019 filed by the complainant/petitioner is allowed.

The delay in filing complaint case no.27/2024 is hereby condoned.

Thus, the Misc. Application dated 14/03/2024 is disposed of.