Salma Noor, Member:
1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.809/2007 is directed against the order dated 4.7.2011 of the CDRF (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide which OP was directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) being the assured sum under policy with interest @ 10% from the date of lodging of complaint till its realization.
The complainant was also awarded Rs.10,000/- being costs of litigation.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 598 days in filing the appeal.
3. We have heard Sh. Ms. Jyoti Divya, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Suraj Jaiswal, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
4. The grounds for the condonation of delay are reproduced below:-
i) œThe order passed by District Forum on 4.7.2011 and the case was being defended by Advocate Ms. Neeru Garg on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that the said counsel has visited the forum number of times to get the information about the fate of the case.
ii) œThat the officials of the District Forum lastly advised/assured the said counsel that they will send the copy of the order directly to company i.e. the appellant/ it is also submitted that even on that time some file was not traceable and even the counsel for the complainant was also inquiring about the order/file.
iii) That on 4.12.2012, the Counsel for the Complainant met to the Counsel for the appellant in Rohini court and in Rohini Court and while the4 said counsel of the appellant required him then the said counsel of the complainant informed that the file in the consumer court has been traced and he provide the copy of the order dated 4.7.2011.
iv) Thereafter the counsel for the appellant visited the forum then she was informed by the lady clerk that they have already sent the order vide despatch No.1964 dated 1.9.2011. The copy of the order received by the counsel is attached herewith which was handed over by the Counsel to the company only on 14.2.2013 at despatch/receiving counter and thereafter the said order was sent to concerned dealing department/officer of the appellant on 15.2.2013. It is submitted that as per the information given by the employee of the consumer forum that they have already sent the copy of order/judgment but till date no copy of the award allegedly might have been sent by the said forum the appellant/company has not been delivered/received in the company and the company has only received the copy supplied by the counsel as stated above.
v) That thereafter the appellant company engaged the present counsel and also got collected the documents and got prepared the present appeal which is based and required the legal observations of this commission.?
5. It has been contended by the counsel for the applicant that delay has occurred because of its Counsel Ms. Neeru Garg who visited number of times to District Forum but the case file was not traceable in the District Forum and the applicant/appellant came to know about the impugned order only on 4.12.2012 when he met with the complainants counsel at Rohini Court. After that he applied for the certified copy of the order. Further delay has occurred in taking the proper steps for obtaining the certified copy of the order. After obtaining the copy of the impugned order, the company engaged the present counsel, collected the documents and filed the appeal before this Commission. In our view the applicant/appellant acted in a highly irresponsible and negligent manner. The applicant/appellant did not act with due diligence that resulted into the long delay of 598 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has put up before us false excuse to cover its laps of filing the appeal after such a long time. The applicant/appellant was required to explain each days delay. It, however, miserable failed to explain the delay of 598 days which is more than 19 times beyond the normal period of filing an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is intentional, wilful and deliberate and no sufficient cause is constituted from the averment contained in the application. The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explanation for delay has to be rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable.
6. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, 2009(2) Scale 108, it has been observed:
œWe hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petition stands properly examined. 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.
7. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustive considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Orien Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under:-
œWe have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed to redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time The expression œsufficient cause? employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statues is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate “ Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106?.
8. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed:
œIt is also opposite 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?.
9. The law of the Supreme Court followed by National Commission and this Commission in this regard is well settled. Reference can be made to few of such cases cited below:
i) Delhi Development Authority vs. Gurinder Kaur Kohli-III 2010 CPJ 248 (NC)
ii) HUDA vs Krishna Devi “ III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iii) HUDA vs Randhir Singh“ III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iv) Narayana I.I.T. Academy vs. R.K. Sharma “III 2010 191 (DSCDRC)
10. Hence, the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the appellant is rejected.
11. Consequently we dismiss the appeal on the ground of its being time barred.
12. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.