Gurjit Singh Multani Vs. PNB Metlife India Ins. Co. etc.

Present:        Sh. Jit Singh Saini, Adv Counsel for Complainant.  

1.                Through this order, we are going to dispose off an application under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for condonation of delay of days in filing the complaint.

2.                Brief facts of the application is that the previous complaint was filed on 21.09.2016 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant due to technical defect of pecuniary jurisdiction and permission was granted to file the complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission. No complaint was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission. It has been alleged by the complainant that he came to know that new rules are being amended and new Act to be enacted in the year 2019, therefore after the enactment of the new Act, the District Commission had jurisdiction to file the present complaint. It has been further alleged that he directed the counsel to file complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission but it was due to negligence of the counsel for the complainant, no complaint was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission. He has sought the condonation on the ground that the complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission could not be filed due to the fault of the counsel.

3.                Perusal of record shows that the complainant already availed one year from 25.02.2019 the day, when the previous complaint was withdrawn to 15.03.2020 till the Lockdown was announced. As per the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the limitation period was extended from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. If we deduct the period as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the complainant was to file the complaint within two years from the date 25.02.2019 till 24.02.2021 and after deducting the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, the complainant was to file the complaint within 90 days as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant did not file the complaint within 90 days, which came to an end on 31.05.2022, rather chose to file the complaint on 30.09.2022.

4.                As per version of the complainant and perusal of the present complaint the present complaint was filed through attorney Sh. Gopal Singh to whom he has given attorney in the month of March, 2022. He himself has stated that he visited India in the month of March 2022, but did not file the complaint during the period of limitation. This clearly shows that he did not bother about the filing of the complaint within prescribed period rather opted to go abroad without directing his authority/attorney to file the complaint within time to whom he had given the attorney in the month of March, 2022. There is no dispute regarding the law that the Court should adopt liberal approach while condoning the delay and the matter should not be decided on technical grounds. The opportunity should be granted to the parties to contest the case on merits, but at the same time, the law does not help those who sleep over the matter intentionally. In the present case also, he did not opt to follow up or to file complaint after withdrawal of the previous complaint within time. He further did not choose to file complaint after March, 2022 when he visited India and gave attorney to his counsel and appointed attorney also. In such circumstances, the contention that he had to go abroad for his job purposes does not give him any right to sleep over the mater and to avail the remedy as per his own convenience. Law helps those who remain vigilant and are stopped by unavoidable circumstances from availing the legal remedy, but here in the present case this is no so. Accordingly, no ground is made out to condone the delay, the same is dismissed and accordingly the complaint of the complainant being time barred is also dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Member               Member          President/14.10.2022