IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 778 days in filing of revision petition cannot be condoned.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The Law does not come to the rescue of a sleeping person. Delay dampens the ordour of a case. It has definitely deleterious effect on the case as a whole. In this case, we are called upon to decide a case where there was delay of about three years’ in filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum and AGAIN there was delay of 778 days’ in filing this revision petition, before this Commission.

2. The complainant Ms. Janabai Rambhau More, resides at Village Bhanarwadi, District Beed, Maharashtra. She took ‘Janata Personal Accident Policy’ covering the period 04.05.1998 to 03.05.2003. On 07.10.1998, the complainant while travelling from Ahmednagar to Bhoom by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bus, along with her son, received injury because the window of the bus where the complainant was sitting, got broken and caused hurt to the eyes and nose of the complainant. She sustained permanent injury on one eye. She was taken to Dr. Sanap’s Hospital, who gave her first aid and advised her to go to Ahmednagar. The complainant went to Shri Datta Netralaya and Eye Foundation and Accident Hospital, Ahmednagar, where she was admitted and was discharged on 13.10.1998, after treatment and surgery. She had to incur an expenditure of Rs.45,650/-. Her claim was repudiated by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the respondent. A complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,15,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint, till its realisation.

3. Aggrieved by that order, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the original complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum was barred by time, and allowed the appeal, dismissing the complaint.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant/ petitioner filed the present revision petition before this Commission, with delay of 778 days’.

5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission has always held in their plethora of judgments that the technical points and grounds should not be raised before the Consumer Fora as the Consumer Protection Act is social welfare legislation, as such in this case the Hon’ble State Commission has reversed the order of the Hon’ble District Forum on the technical grounds and hence it is to be set aside by this Hon’ble National Commission.

6. We are of the considered view that the State Commissioin took the right view. It must be borne in mind that the facts are stubborn things. This is an indisputable fact that the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 13.10.1998. The complaint was filed in the year 2003. No explanation for the above said inordinate delay is forthcoming. There is no evidence that the complainant had moved an application for condonation of delay before the District Forum. There is delay of five years’, which remains unexplained.

7. In SBI v. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries1 the Apex court, in paras 7, 8, 9 and 15, has held:

“7. Section 24A of the Act, 1986, prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus:

“24A. Limitation period – (1) - The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided