The court emphasized the importance of due diligence in filing complaints and the need to establish sufficient cause for condoning delays under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Gurdev Singh, President. - The appellants/opposite parties have preferred this appeal against the order dated 13.01.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the application filed by the respondent/ complainant, Jaspal Singh, for condoning the delay in filing the complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed. The complainant alleged in the application that he purchased one tractor bearing Registration No.PB-18-N-0998; which he got insured with the opposite parties. The tractor was got financed by him from ICICI Bank Limited, Amritsar, and he had been regularly paying the instalments towards the loan. On 14.07.2009, he visited the house of his sister at Batala and had his dinner at that place. Thereafter, he proceeded towards his village Shahpur Jajan on the tractor at about 9.00 P.M. He was not feeling well and, as such, decided to take rest near village Madiyawal. He parked the tractor on the road and sat down on the roadside and went into sleep. The next morning, when he got up, he found that the tractor was missing. He searched for the same, but failed. He got the FIR registered in Police Station, Civil Lines, Batala, on 15.07.2009 about the theft of the same. Compelled by the circumstances, he decided to file the consumer complaint in the month of April, 2012 and, accordingly, approached Sh. Satinder Pal Singh, Advocate, at Batala and paid him a fee of Rs.20,000/-. He was assured that the complaint would be filed within two or three days. When after three days, he approached that Advocate to inquire about the filing of the complaint, he was told that a legal notice was required before filing the same and that the same had been sent to the opposite parties. When he demanded the copy of that legal notice from the Advocate, he was told that the same was lying in his office at his house and that he could collect the same on some other day. He again approached that Advocate after two weeks to inquire about the filing of the complaint, but was told that the period of said notice had not lapsed and that the complaint would be filed within two or three days. When he approached the Advocate after a week to inquire about the filing of the complaint, he was told that the same had been filed and that his presence was not necessary and whenever he would feel need of, he would definitely contact him. On 15.06.2011, he received a legal notice from ICICI Bank, vide which the outstanding amount of loan was demanded. After the receipt of that notice, he again approached the said Advocate and was told that the legal notice was required to be replied. He again approached the Advocate in the month of November, 2012 to inquire about the fate of his complaint and was told that the same was still pending. He was told that it would take two or three years and he should not worry about the same. On that day, he was also delivered unsigned copy of the reply sent by the Advocate to ICICI Bank, Amritsar. On 07.06.2012, he again received a letter from that Bank, vide which the outstanding loan amount was demanded. After the receipt of that notice, he again met the same Advocate and was told that the reply was to be given to that notice. After a week, he again approached that Advocate and was told that the reply had been sent to the Bank. When he asked about the fate of his complaint, he was told that the same was still pending and his presence was not required. In the month of March, 2014, the officials of the Bank approached him for the recovery of loan and he told them about the pendency of the complaint and that after the decision thereof, he would return the loan amount. He again approached Satinder Pal Singh, Advocate, at Batala to know about the status of his complaint and was told that the complaint was still pending. He also told him that he would definitely win that case. It was on the assurance given by the Advocate that he remained silent