PER HONBLE SMT. GAURI M. KAPSE, MEMBER

Order on application for condonation of delay

dt.30/11/2022 filed by the Complainant

1. Heard both the parties on the delay application and perused the record of the complaint.
2. This is an application for condonation of the delay of 308 days, which came to be filed after the institution of the case which reached to the stage of written and oral argument in the matter.
3. The case came to be instituted on 08/05/2012. The Respondent has filed the written version on 07/08/2015 and raised an objection about the delay in filing the complaint; consequently, it has prayed for its dismissal thereof summarily.
4. The Complainant claims that, he lost his son on 25/12/2011 in a vehicular accident, and also his wife was taking treatment for a breast tumour. Consequently, the Complainant has suffered depression since 25/12/2011 to 10/04/2015. Therefore, he claims that, due to depression, he could not file the present complaint within the limitation. Consequently, he prayed for condonation of delay while taking cognizance of the case and trying the same in this forum.
5. The Respondent has strongly opposed the application on the following grounds:
   1. No sufficient cause has been made out by the Complainant in the application.
   2. The Respondent has filed its written version on 07/08/2015 wherein it has raised an objection about delay. The Complainant has failed to take cognizance of the said fact and filed their affidavit of evidence on 24/11/2017.
   3. The Complainant has filed a delay condonation application when the matter was kept for written argument, without any justification.
   4. The Complainant had claimed to have been ailing since he lost his son, but the complaint was filed through an advocate. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the Complainant’s counsel was ignorant of the law and legal procedure.
   5. The averment made in the delay application is already in the complaint. There are no new circumstances arising to file the present application.
   6. Plea as to, the health condition of the Complainant can in no way influence the merit of the case. The delay is exorbitant in its right perspective and should be considered isa delay of 10 years.
   7. On all the grounds, it has prayed for dismissal of the said application with costs.
6. Following is the factual matrix in the matter: The present case has been filed by the Complainant on 08/05/2012 in persona. The written version came to be filed on 07/08/2015. The copy thereof has been collected on 08/12/2015. Thereafter, when the written version came to be filed, the services of an advocate were engaged by the Complainant. The advocate of the Complainant has taken a copy of the written version on 08/12/2015. Therefore, they should have been promptitude in filing the delay condonation application. Such being the fact the delay application came to filed on 30/11/2022.
7. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing the case and taking cognizance thereof. Consequently, the following point arises for our determination.

6. The Complainant has filed the certificate of treating Dr.Pradip Bhagat and the medical paper of his wife’s treatment with an affidavit.
7. On keen perusal of documentary evidence of the Complainant, it is crystal clear that the Complainant has suffered from depression since 25/11/2012 to 10/04/2015. Therefore, this delay period could have been considered while condoning the delay. However, such is not a matter of fact in the case at hand.
8. It is manifest that the written version came to be filed on 07/08/2015. The copy thereof has been collated on 08/12/2015. Therefore, the advocate of the Complainant was well aware of the defense of the Respondent that, the case is expressly barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Under such circumstances, the Complainant and his advocate were duty -bound to file the delay application at the earliest from the receipt of a copy of the written version. However, they have filed the delay application on 30/11/2022. Thus, the total delay after receipt of the copy of the written version by the Complainant and his advocate is 6 years ,11 months, and 22 days. Hence, on this plight, we have to find out whether there is reasonable and justifiable ground to condone the above said delay.
10. The Respondent has relied on the following ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission:
    1. Sisir Bank vs. Pradip Kumar & Anr. In Revision Petition no.3806/2012 decided on 26/02/2013
    2. Harayan State Federation of Consumer Co-op Wholesale  stores Ltd.& Anr vs. Khem Chnad I (2013)CPJ 12B(NC) (CN)
    3. Ashok Kumar Sainia vs. Delhi Development Authority in FA No.183/2007 decided on 21/03/2013
    4. V.K. Appliances vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. IV (2013)CPJ 419(NC)

The ratio decided in above said rulings are squarely applicable to the case at hand.

11.  In this regard, the Respondent's evidence speaks that, there is no just and sufficient ground for condoning the delay, as eloquent from the oral and documentary evidence of the Complainant. Hence, under such circumstances, the condonation of delay will amounts to misuse of the judicial process. On the contrary, callous negligence appears to have been shown by the Complainant and his advocate for moving this application for condonation of delay after receipt of the copy of written version. Hence, there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay; consequently, the delay application deserves to be rejected. Hence, we record the finding on the point accordingly and proceed to pass the following order.

Final Order

1. The condonation of delay application dt.30/11/2022 is hereby dismissed without costs.
2. As the delay condonation application ended in dismissal, the Consumer case no.90/2015 hereby stands dismissed.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.