(Delivered on 24/07/2024)
Per Mrs. Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Member
1) Applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay of 6 months and 9 days in preferring the present appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before this Commission and being aggrieved by Judgment dt. 23/07/2019 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Case No. RBT/CC/614/2018
2) Heard Adv. Ashish Paunikar on the point of condonation of delay. He submits that the impugned Order was passed on 23/07/2019 thereby allowing the complaint. He submits that the original claim filed being older one were not traceable by insurance company the delay also on the part that , no premium collection register, bank statement, BRS was not available for compliance of 64 VB. To comply the order necessary information were sought from the Bilaspur Office of the Insurance Company therefore, since original claim were trace out was forwarded on NPRO on 11/02/2020 , for other grounds it is submitted that , the delay has been occurred or caused on account of administrative grounds in official correspondence of the insurance company. The District Consumer Forum has passed the award on 23/07/2019, certified copy received on 02/08/2019, accordingly, the appeal was to be filed within 30 days i.e. on 02/09/2019 but the appeal is filed disclosing administrative grounds i.e. on 11/03/2020, thus the delay of 6 months and 9 days which is to be condoned to avoid irreparable loss of insurance company.
3) Advocate for the appellant cited one Judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport through its General Manager Vs. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana Through Parivartan and Ors. In this Judgment there is reference cited one Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649. In this Judgment additional guidelines were enumerated “ there should be a liberal pragmatic, justice-oriented, non pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
4) Notice was issued and thereafter Non- applicant has filed reply to the application for condonation of delay on 17/10/2022, In reply the Non- applicant has strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay and contended that the delay is without any sufficient cause needs to be dismissed.
5) We have heard Mr. Kaushik Mandal, learned advocate for the non applicant. Non-applicant has filed the reply on 17/10/2022. He submits that the appellant failed to file any documents on record to prove their contentions and there is no sufficient cause to prove the delay on day to day basis and even not explained on day to day basis. The contentions made in this para are all false and there is no plausible and acceptable explanations and it cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. Except mentioning of some dates there is no proper explanation to the day to day delay which miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reason to condone such huge delay which the appellant has adequately failed to explain the delay which is more than 6 months 9 days.
6) The non applicant cited the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC). It has been held that it is also appropriate to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petition filed against the order of the Consumer Fora. Secondly, In Balwant Singh Vs Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1166/2006, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 08/07/2010. It was held that , the party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercises of due care and attention. Latter on the counsel for the non applicant has filed one Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lingeswaran ETC Vs Thirunagalingam, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022, 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC)227. In this case it was held that when it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone delay is required to be dismissed - The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds - Still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches.
7) Applicant has not given the satisfactory reasons for causing of delay of 6 months and 9 days in filing the Application for condonation of delay for preferring the Appeal against the impugned order dt.23/07/2019. So far as aspect of delay of 6 months and 9 days of procedural delay is concerned we reject the application for condonation of delay. Hence we pass the following Order-
//ORDER//
- Application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
- Consequently the Appeal is stand disposed of.
- Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
