Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Jaswinder Kaur

Deepa Sharma, J

IA/9759/2017 (For condonation of delay)

This application has been filed with the present revision petition for condonation of delay of 110 days as per the Registry. In the application however, the applicant has not mentioned the number of days by which the present revision petition is delayed.

This revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 12.10.2016 in appeal No. 1462 of 2014 which was filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 15.9.2014 in complaint No.76 of 2014.

The condonation of delay is sought on the following grounds:

"3. That thereafter the petitioner approached his local counsel at Chandigarh to engage a counsel for drafting and filing the present revision petition which took some time. That the local counsel at Chandigarh approached the present counsel at Delhi to draft and file the petition on behalf of the petitioner. And thereafter the undersigned counsel at Delhi sent the draft of the revision petition along with the accompanying affidavit for signing and vetting by the petitioner herein, through the local counsel at Chandigarh in the Month of May, 2017. That thereafter the duly signed revision petition along with the affidavits could only be received by the counsel in Delhi in the last week of June, 2017."

The applicant is required to explain the delay of each and every day, showing that there were sufficient reasons due to which he could not present his revision petition within time. True that the Court have to adopt liberal attitude while dealing with such applications but where the delay remain unexplained, and the reasons are not convincing and sufficient, Courts are justified in rejecting the application and refusing to condonation of delay. The burden is solely upon the applicant to justify the delay in the case of "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that where the applicant fails to prove sufficient cause for delay, the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. The Apex Court has held as under:

"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case laid down the test to be applied by the Courts, while assessing whether sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been made out or not. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under:

"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."

In "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), and "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578," by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay the special period of limitation prescribed under the Special Act, especially the Consumer Protection Act has to be kept in mind. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under:

"It 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 Fora."

Keeping in mind this principle of law when I examine the reason for delay given by the applicant petitioner, I found no justification for condonation of delay. The reasons given clearly shows that the applicant petitioners are not dealing with due diligence and they were acting in a very lazy manner taking things very casually; I find no reasonable ground to condone the delay. The application is hereby dismissed; consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed.