This order will dispose of the application dated 05.03.2018 filed by the complainant/applicant u/S 24-A (2) for condonation of delay along with the complainant. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant/complainant. It is stated in the application that the complainant/applicant wants to file the instant complaint before this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. Earlier the complainant/applicant filed complaint before this Forum, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.07.2015, due to some technical defects. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint before Public Utility Centre, Gurdaspur on 30.09.2015, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 24.02.2016. The complainant/applicant who is aged about 69 years of age, fell seriously ill thereafter, and as such he could not contact his counsel for filing the complaint after removing the defects. Now, after recovery from the long illness, when the complainant contacted his counsel, the counsel told him that the complaint is not within limitation and further averred that the delay if any in filing the present complaint is neither intentional nor willful, but due to reasons mentioned above. In case, the delay in filing the complaint is not condoned, complaint is not admitted and decided on merits, in that event the complainant/applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It has been thus prayed that the delay if any in filing the present complaint may be condoned and the complaint be admitted and decided on merits in the interest of justice.

2.       The reply to this application for condonation of delay was filed by OP No. 1, OP No. 5, OP No. 2 and OP No. 6 along with their affidavits. However, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 have been given up by the complainant. All the other opposite parties have contended that there is delay of more than 3 years in filing the complaint and the complainant has been grossly negligent in handling the matter and have very little regard to the majesty of the Hon'ble Court and the process of law and further submitted that the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay do not disclose any sufficient cause and thus, the present application as well as complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.       Heard on the application as well as complaint U/S12 of complainant.

4.     24A Limitation Period:-

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

5.      We have also gone through the case Anshul Kedia Vs. Dr. B. Lalchandani, Complaint Case No. 30 of 2015 decided on 10.12.2015 (Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur); Satluj Motors versus Mr. Charanjit Singh & Anr., First Appeal No. 39/2018 decided on 27.02.2019 (Hon'ble H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla); and Laxminarayan Janaki Vs. The Director of Health Services Government of West Bengal and others, First Appeal No. 205 of 2010 decided on 22.11.2010 by the Hon'ble National Commission.

6.      We have further gone through a latest case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shambhu Nath Upadhyay, 2020 (1) CLT 7, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission as under :

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12, 15 & 21(b) – Limitation – Condonation of delay-Held-It is a settled preposition of law that law has to be applied equally to all-No doubt, the courts/commissions have the discretion to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, however, the courts/commissions cannot ignore the provision of law only because delay caused inconvenience to a particular party-Unless the applicant explains to the court that there was sufficient cause for such delay, the courts are prevented from exercising its jurisdiction in extending the period of limitation or condoning it-The sufficient cause means adequate and enough reasons which prevented a party from approaching the court within limitation-The party is required to show that it had been acting diligently and remained active and that the delay had occurred for the reasons which were beyond its control-Revision petition dismissed.”

7.In Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus:

“9.   Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case //6// must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bone fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. V. Bhootnath Banerjeet & Ors., IR 1964 SC 1336;

15.   The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsover. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

8.       We have gone through the averments made in the application moved by the complainant/applicant for condonation of  longer delay and also gone through the case file very minutely. The complainant/applicant did not produce any document or medical certificate with regard to his sickness. Therefore, he could not establish sufficient cause/reason for such a long delay in filing the present complaint/application and further keeping in view the aforesaid rulings, we are satisfied that the applicant/complainant has miserably failed to explain the specific reasons for longer delay in filing the present application. Therefore, we hold that the present application has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant also stands dismissed. No order as to its costs.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 February 11, 2020.                   Member                         Presiding Member

 MK