K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.8.2013 passed by learned State Commission, Haryana in C.C. No. 65/2013 – M/s. Regain Laboratories Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed in limine as time barred.

2. Brief facts of the cases are that the complainant firm got its machinery and stock including raw material and packing material insured from the opposite party (insurance company) vide two policies i.e. bearing No. 353400/11/09/00000005 valid from 24.4.2009 to 23.4.2009 for Rs.60,00,000/- covering stock of all kind of medicines, Raw material, packing materials and another policy bearing No. 353400/11/09/11/00000067 valid from 20.9.2009 to 19.9.2010 for Rs.20,00,000/-. Unfortunately, during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 13.4.2010 a fire incident took place at the insured premises of the complainant due to which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.70,00,000/-. The matter was reported to the police. Necessary intimation was given to the insurance company who appointed surveyor to assess the loss/damage in the above said incident of fire. The complainant submitted all the documents and completed all the formalities with respect to settlement of his claim but the opposite parties paid only Rs.3,30,200/- and Rs.3,13,300/- to the complainant vide two cheques dated 17.4.2011. The complainant made several requests to the opposite party to pay the balance amount but the opposite party refused to pay the balance amount to the complainant. It was further alleged that complainant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat and Complaint No.23 of 2012 was filed, but that was dismissed by Permanent Lok Adalat as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh case by order dated 7.3.2013. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, respondent/complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Along with complaint, complainant also filed application u/s 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 448 days delay. Learned State Commission by impugned order dismissed complaint as barred by limitation against which, this appeal has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that inspite of satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint in limine being barred by limitation; hence, appeal be allowed and complaint may be treated in limitation and matter may be remanded back to the State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

5. Complainant along with complaint filed application under section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 448 days delay in filing the complaint. Learned State Commission observed that there was no explanation for condonation of delay of 165 days from 7.3.2013 to 19.8.2013 when complaint was filed before the State Commission and dismissed complaint as barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of wrong legal advice, complainant approached Permanent Lok Adalat and later on after receiving proper legal advice, complaint was withdrawn and complaint was filed before State Commission. In such circumstances, delay should have been condoned by learned State Commission. In support of the contention, he has placed reliance on 1969 (2) SCC 770 – Lala Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan in which it was held that mistake of Counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning delay although there is a no general proposition that mistake of Counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground. He has also placed reliance on (1979) 4 SCC 365 – M/s. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. in which delay of 30 days in filing appeal was condoned