IMPORTANT POINT
The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member—We heard learned counsel for the revisionists – insurance co. and the respondent - complainant, and perused the material on record.

2. The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim regarding theft of a tractor.

The theft occurred in 2013, we are in 2019.

3. This revision petition has been filed against the Order dated 27.01.2017 of the State Commission with self-admitted delay of 189 days.

The stated reasons for delay, as mentioned in paras 2 to 9 (a) of the application for condonation of delay, are as below

2. That the Petitioner after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 on 02.02.2017 entrusted the matter to Ms. Suman Bagga Advocate for filing the revision petition through e-mail and forwarded the certified copy of the impugned order along with order of the District Forum, complaint copy and claim file to her office on 10.02.2017.

3. That the said counsel vide return mail requested the petitioner to send the written statement and evidence filed before the District Forum also. The Petitioner had to get the said documents from the dealing advocate and the same were supplied to the counsel on 15.03.2016. Since all the documents were in Hindi language including the impugned order, the counsel gave the same to her clerk to get the documents translated from the translator available in Delhi High Court. The clerk of the counsel informed her that there is only one translator in Delhi High Court from whom he gets the documents translated and he was also not available for few days. The clerk therefore, went to Tis Hazari Courts to get the documents translated and left the papers with the translator. The clerk informed the counsel that translation would take at least two week’s time. The clerk also informed the counsel that he had retained the original certified copy of the impugned order with him and had handed over the photocopy of the same to the translator.

4. That the clerk of the counsel went on leave in the last week of March, 2017 for preparing for his exams which were due in April-May, 2017 and before leaving, he informed the other clerk of the counsel to collect the translated documents from the translator in his absence and also handed over the original certified copy of the impugned order to him. The other clerk went to Tis Hazari Courts 2-3 times but could not establish contact with the translator. He ultimately brought the translated documents to the office on 27.04.2017 and gave the same to the counsel. The certified copy however, was earlier kept by him in some other file which could not be traced out immediately.

5. That unfortunately, bereavement took place in the family of the counsel on 01.05.2017 and the counsel could not attend to her work for twelve days and the case in hand escaped the attention of the counsel. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had entrusted five matters to the counsel during that period and in all other matters, Revision Petitions Appeals etc. have been filed by the counsel, the case in hand escaped the attention of the petitioner.

6. That the counsel while clearing her backlog of cases and reviewing the files for pending work on 04.11.2017 came across the certified copy of the impugned order as also the file of the case in hand and the mistake was noticed. The Revision Petition had already been partly drafted by her and she completed the same immediately and forwarded to the office of the petitioner for approval on 5.11.2017. In this process a delay of 189 days has occurred in the filing the present revision petition. There was no lapse at all or any negligence on the part of the petitioner company as the instructions along with requisite documents had been timely forwarded to the office of the counsel. Affidavit of the counsel is also enclosed in support of this application.

7. That the delay in filing the