Tanjigari Sudhakar vs M NAGESWARA RAO

THIS petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant was taken up for hearing on 11 -2 -2015. Notices were directed to be issued on that day and the matter was posted to 12 -3 -2015. On that day, none appeared for the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 24 -3 -2015. The matter was again adjourned to 17 -4 -2015. None appeared even on the said date in the forenoon, hence the matter was passed over and called in the afternoon without any result. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption "For dismissal" to today i.e. 22 -4 -2015. Accordingly the matter has been listed and called twice, both in the forenoon and in the afternoon but unfortunately, none appeared for the petitioner and there is no representation. Apparently the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter.

BE that as it may, this Commission is convinced that there are no valid reasons to condone the delay of 210 days.

IN his affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated as follows: "I am aged about 60 years having old age elements (sic ailments) for which I am regularly attending for medical checkup and treatments and in view of my ill health I could not properly moved freely to anywhere thus my health is not permitted me to approach this Hon''ble Forum to prefer this appeal in time as such there was delay of 210 days. I have got strong case in this appeal and if the delay of 210 days will not be condoned, I will be put to irreparable loss and damage".

The petitioner/complainant, except stating that he has old age problems, has not given details as to what the ailments are and the treatments taken by him. The statement in the affidavit is vague, not supported by any material. The petitioner/complainant has failed to prove that there is sufficient cause in filing the appeal with such inordinate delay of 210 days.

EVEN on merits, the petitioner has no case. It is worthwhile to peruse the impugned order of the District Forum which is as follows: "The application is for condoning the delay of 3818 days in representing the complaint, which was returned by the office. The reason mentioned was that the file was mis -placed. The other reason mentioned was that the complainant was attending on the family members, who were hospitalized in Chennai. It is unbelievable that the file could not be traced for more than 10 years. The complainant might have searched for the file and traced it, soon after hospital duty was over. The reason mentioned is not satisfactory. On the other hand, it appears un -believable. The complainant has not explained the delay to the satisfaction. Hence, dismissed".

AS could be seen from the aforesaid order, the complaint was not re -presented for 3818 days on the ground that the petitioner/complainant was attending to his family members who were hospitalized in Chennai and the file was not traced as it was misplaced. As rightly pointed out by the District Forum, it is unbelievable that the petitioner/complainant did not trace the file for 10 years. The falsity of his statement can be easily inferred from his conduct of non -seriousness both before the District Forum and this Commission. He has shown supine indifference in pursuing his complaint.

THE petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed and consequently FA (SR)No.6429/2014 also stand dismissed.