PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT 

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the complainant he has purchased the insurance policy. He has submitted his claim but it was not satisfied therefore he has filed this complaint claiming amount of Rs.3,33,625/- with interest.  As there is delay, he has filed this application for condonation of delay.  It is opposed by the opponents on the ground that the delay is not properly explained.

2)                After hearing all the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

3) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- It is not disputed that the claim was repudiated on 2^nd February, 2011.  Therefore, it was necessary to file the complaint within two years from 2^nd February, 2011.  Admittedly, earlier, the complaint was filed before the South Mumbai Consumer Forum on 28^th March, 2013 i.e. after the period of limitation. In the application itself, it is stated by the complainant that the papers were handed over to the advocate to file consumer complaint. The said advocate was practicing in criminal side.  He prepared the consumer complaint but failed to file the complaint and returned the brief to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Advocate Shri Baliram Kamble (the matter is argued by Advocate Shri Baliram Kamble).  Adv.Shri Kamble issued notice to the Insurance Company but there was no reply.  Copy of the said notice is on record.  It is dated 6^th October, 2012.  Thereafter, Advocate Shri Kamble was busy in his family function.  Therefore, there was delay of 54 days to file this complaint.  From the above facts mentioned in the application itself, it is clear that the complainant approached the advocate and sought legal advice.  Advocate Shri Kamble who is now representing the complainant issued notice on 6^th October, 2012.  Therefore, it was necessary for him to file complaint within time limit.  On perusal of complaint, the application for condonation delay and Vakalatnama of Advocate Shri Baliram Kamble, it is clear that all the papers were ready in the month of November-2012.  But, the complaint was filed on 28^th March, 2013 before the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. The reason given for delay is that Advocate Shri Kamble was busy in his family function in the month of January-February-2013.  This reason can not be accepted as all the papers were ready prior to it. The complaint was filed before the South Mumbai Consumer Forum on 28^th March, 2013.  Thus, the explanation given by the complainant is not proper to condone the delay.

4)                The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that number of days of delay is not material, if sufficient cause is shown. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2696 of 2002, decided on 25^th April,2003 in the case of Ashok Kumar –Versus- HVPNL.  In view of this judgment, if sufficient cause is shown, delay can be condoned.  In the instant complaint before us, explanation given by the complainant is not proper to condone the delay.  Therefore, the abovecited judgment is not applicable.  On the other hand, the learned advocate for the O.P. has submitted that the Forum can not condone the delay without proper explanation.  For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2013) CPJ 419 (NC) in the case of V.K.Appliances –Versus- New India Assurance Company Limited, decided on 1^st October, 2011, In para 3 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down as under :

It is well settled that letters, notices do not  extend  the  time  of  limitation.  The  case  must be  filed within  two  years’  from  the  date  of  repudiation of claim.  Again, the ‘sufficient cause’ cannot  be  erased from  Section 5 of  the Limitation Act  by adopting excessive  liberal  approach  which  would defeat  the  very  purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.  There must be some cause, which can be termed  as  ‘sufficient cause’, for the purpose of delay of condonation. 

The learned advocate for the O.P. has further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1986-2002 Consumer 6570 (NS) in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited –Versus- Satish Khanna & Anr. Decided on 5^th March, 2002. In para 1 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under :

It was submitted before us that delay of 10 days is not material and State Commission as a matter of course should have condoned the same.  We do not think that would be a right approach.  If argument proceeds on this basis then why not to condone the delay of 11 days, 12 days and so on and then there cannot be any time limit.  In Consumer Forum a matter has to be decided in a certain set time frame.  A Consumer Forum cannot become lax on this.  There may be that because of pendency of arrears there could be delay in disposal of cases but that would not mean that the period fixed at various stages by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should be given a go by.  Sufficient cause for condonation of delay has to be shown. 

In view of the abovesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, delay can not be condoned unless it is properly explained.  In the instant complaint before us, claim was repudiated on 2^nd February, 2011.  The reason given by the complainant for delay is not proper as all the papers were ready in November-2012 itself.  Thus, the complaint is apparently barred by limitation.  As the delay is not properly explained, the delay can not be condoned. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

1. The application filed by the complainant for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
2. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 15^th September, 2014