STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
(Additional Bench)
Revision Petition No. | : | 51 of 2023 |
Date of Institution | : | 06.11.2023 |
Date of Decision | : | 30.04.2024 |
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Com. Ltd. Plot No.149, 4th Statement, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, U.T. 160002 through its Legal Manager.
…Revisionist
V e r s u s
Preet Remedies Limited, Plot No.194-95, 3rd floor, Industrial Area, Phawse-II, Chandigarh, U.T.160002 through its authorized signatory, Shri Gurjap Singh Gill. ...Respondent
Revision Petition against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II,U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.231/2023.
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER
Present : Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the revision petitioner
Sh.Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.08.2023 , rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it admitted the complaint for deciding the same on merits, by allowing the application of the respondent/complainant seeking condonation of delay of 912 days in filing the complaint subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
2. In this revision petition, the revisionist has asserted that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission condoning such a substantial delay lacks sufficient reasoning to justify the condonation of such a delay in filing the consumer complaint and that the judgment relied upon in support of the condonation of delay is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Repudiation letter dated 26.10.2016 in the present case was received by the respondent/complainant on 31.10.2016 and as such the consumer complaint should have been filed by or before 31.12.2018 but the same has been filed after a delay of 1630 days as the exemption for the period of Covid-19 cannot be applied in this case being the complaint already time-barred when the pandemic began. Thus, it was wrongly stated that there was delay of 912 days. Further the affidavit produced of the counsel is contrary to the pleaded facts and no date, time & year and name of the representative has been mentioned who visited the office of the revisionist. Thus, it was pleaded that the complaint was clearly time barred and application for condonation of delay lacks merit. It was prayed that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission be set aside and the complaint be dismissed, being time barred.
3. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.
4. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the applicant/respondent has given explanation about the delay of 912 days in filing the consumer complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission. It is explained therein as to how the counsel engaged by the complainant kept its officers/representatives in dark by giving oral updates whereas at later stage the factum of non-filing of the consumer complaint came to the notice of the officers of the complainant company. The explanation given by the applicant/respondent regarding delay of 912 was accepted by the learned Lower Commission and keeping in view the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and admitted the complaint to be decided on merits subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
5. In N.Balakrishan Vs M.Krishnamurthy Civil Appeals No.4575-76 of 1998 decided on 3.9.1998, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. It is further held that once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally superior court should not disturb such finding, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. It was further held that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on part of the litigant concerned that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. In another case titled as Radha Krishna Rai Vs Allahabad Bank and others Civil Appeal No.4683 of 1999, arising out of SLP(C ) No.1341 of 1998 decided on 23.8.1999, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under;
“On the facts, we are of the view that though the period of delay is unduly long, the circumstances are also very unusual. The petitioner has been a victim of misrepresentation of facts by his own advocate and was kept under the impression that the appeal is pending before the High Court whereas no appeal was in fact file by the advocate. It cannot be said that the appellant has not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal. The cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We accordingly condone the delay and remit the matter to the High Court for disposing of the appeal in accordance with law. “
6. The case law cited above is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission condoning the delay of 912 days in filing the complaint is upheld.
8. Complete record of complaint file be sent back to the Ld. Lower Commission alongwith certified copy of this order, for deciding the complaint on merits.
9 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge .
10. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
