Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)
1) The appellant insurance company while preferring the appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a., from 1.11.2011 till payment together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- filed the above application u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 10 days on the ground that copy of the order was received by it through its counsel at Dist. Forum on 9.10.2012 with an advise to prefer the appeal. They in turn forwarded it to its Regional Office for its approval, in the meantime a delay of 10 days had occasioned. It is neither wilful nor wanton, and therefore prayed that the delay be condoned.
2) The respondent resisted the petition. He alleged that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay nor explained where exactly the delay had occasioned. Relying on the following judgements of Apex Court and National Commission, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
i) UHBVNL Vs. Ram Saran reported in I (2013) CPJ 1 (NC) wherein the National Commission the application for condonation of delay of 30 days on the ground that the application is absolutely vague and the same has been filed without any justification.
ii) Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein it was held that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government Departments and offering usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape in the process.
3) The point for consideration is whether there are just and sufficient grounds to condone delay in preferring the appeal?
4) At the outset, we may state that the petitioner/insurance company has initiated steps to prefer the appeal against order of the Dist. Forum as advised by its counsel at Dist. Forum by obtaining approval from its Regional Office. As seen from the record, the delay was for a period of mere 10 days. This Commission should not be too hyper-technical while dealing with such applications as the delay has been explained in the affidavit. The delay was on the ground that it took 10 days time to send the file to Head Office after receipt of order copy. In the decisions relied by the respondent there was a delay of more than 30 days in preferring the appeals/revisions. Therefore the National Commission as well as the Apex Court dismissed such applications. The case on hand is on a different footing. There is hardly 10 days delay in preferring the appeal.
5) The National Commission in Mahindra Holdays and Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Vasanth Kumar H. Kandelwal reported in IV (2012) CPJ 445 (NC) condoned the delay by relying the judgement of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishna Murthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 wherein the Supreme Court held:
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the party of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.â
That was a case where there is a delay of 70 days in preferring the appeal. In the instant case the delay is negligible. In the light of above decision, and in view of the fact that there are no malafides nor dilatory tactics on the part of petitioner, we are of the opinion that the delay could be condoned.
6) In the result the delay is condoned. No costs. Office is directed to register the appeal if it is otherwise in order.