IN THE MATTER:
ANEET KUMAR V/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
Date : 02.08.2023
Case No. : 308/2023
Present : None
Put up at 04:00 PM.
(Ravi Kumar) Member | (Rashmi Bansal) Member | (S.S. Malhotra) President |
At 04:00 PM
Present : None
Matter today is fixed for arguments on limitation. Counsel for complainant is not present since morning. The complainant however meanwhile has filed an application on 19.07.2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint case.
Heard.
The alleged theft has taken place in 2015 i.e. 19.06.2015 and present complaint has been filed on 17.07.2023. When initially it was enquired to how such a long delay in filing the complaint, the complainant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint and it is interalia stated that the complainant did not receive the untraced report from the OP or from Police Station, Sadar, Palwal, Haryana and after great efforts he found the untraced report and it caused the delay in filing the present complaint.
File and Application perused.
It is not mentioned in the entire application as to when he applied for untraced report from the Police Station Sadar, Palwal and when he received it. It is also not mentioned as to how much is the delay nor it has been explained as to why there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. If the attached copy of the untraced report is perused, it mentions that untraced report was prepared way back on 15.08.2015 in FIR No.367/2015. No explanation is coming forward as to why the certified copy of the untraced report has not been taken by the complainant in 2015 once it was ready in 2015 itself. Mere issuing the notice in the year 2023 would not extend the limitation period at all.
In Suranjan Biswas vs Ashoke Kumar Nath & Anr. on 15 November, 2021, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 15.11.2021 in first Appeal No.1005/2019 was held that:
“The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr. C. Vishwanath as the presiding member and Mr. J. Ram Surat Ram Maurya as a member recently observed that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be explained for every day of the delay. The bench observed this while dismissing a revision petition filed under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act-2019.”
Further, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1429 of 2016 of Soudharya Jewllers V/s Paidi Jaganadha Rao was held that:
It is also a settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. The Hon’ble Court has held as under:
"5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”
Accordingly, application for seeking condonation of delay is without any merits and is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is also rejected.
File be consigned to Record Room.
