Oral Order: (Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
1) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the revision can be disposed of at the stage of admission.
2) This petition is filed to condone delay of 1122 days in filing revision against the order of the Dist. Forum in IA No. 13/2009 in CCSR No. 195/2009.
3) The facts leading to filing of this petition is that the complainant/revision petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent insurance company for a direction to pay Rs. 1 lakh together with interest, compensation and costs. He filed the complaint with a petition u/s 24A to condone delay of 585 days on the ground that he could not approach his counsel as he was taking treatment in a hospital. When he could not prove the said fact, the Dist. Forum dismissed the application by order dt. 21.3.2009.
4) Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred this revision along with it above application to condone delay of 1122 days on the ground that after he could contact his counsel he filed C.A. on 28.3.2011, and the copy was delivered to him on 19.4.2012, and when he approached his counsel he advised to engage an advocate at Hyderabad, and in the process delay of 1122 days was occasioned.
5) Except taking theses contentions, the petitioner/complainant did not file any evidence to substantiate that he entrusted the matter to his counsel on a particular date, and that C.A. was filed belatedly etc. He did not file any proof that he was in the hospital etc. The enormous delay of 1122 days was not explained at all. They are all routine and rigmarole.
6) The Honble Supreme Court in Anshu Agarawal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) opined
âIt is also apposite 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 petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras. With the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.â
7) The parties seeking relief has to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 15(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The discretion conferred on this court is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal/revision that would not be a ground for condoning the delay. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal to consumer disputes. It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way, and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons given supported by material, and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals/revisions filed beyond the period allowed will not be exercised in a light and routine manner.
8) We may also state herein that the respondent should not be denied the right accrued to it on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer revision. If it receives summons or notices after a lapse of time he/it may surprise and may not be able to comprehend as to when the litigation would come to an end. As was opined the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation is not sufficient for condoning the delay in favour of applicant. If it does not satisfy the ingredients , and that it does not reflect âsufficient cause then the application should be dismissed. Considering the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the delay is extraneous, not explained, not substantiated, and therefore liable to be dismissed.
9) In the result the petition is dismissed consequently the revision is rejected. No costs.