IMPORTANT POINT
Delay - The complaint was filed after delay of more than 954 days. The grounds stated by the Complainant are devoid of merit, hence not acceptable.

ORDER

I.A. No. 20478 of 2017

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The instant I.A. was filed by the Opposite Party raising the question of maintainability on the ground of limitation (delay in filling the instant Complaint) and the pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for both the sides.

[A] On the point of Limitation:

3. There was delay of 954 days in filing the Consumer Complaint before this Commission. The Complainant filed an I.A. No. 4756/2017 for condonation of delay under section 24A of the CP Act, 1986.

4. The learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that it was the continuous cause of action and therefore there was no delay. We have perused the application for condonation of delay filed by the Complainant.

5. The reasons for the delay are explained in Paragraphs Nos. 4 to 8 of the application, same are reproduced as below:—

(a) That cause of action has arisen on 25-08-2012 when the opposite party doctor administered the anaesthesia on the complainant’s father thereby resulting in him going in to a complete state of coma. The cause of action is a continuing cause of action as the respondents continuous neglect has resulted in the situation in which the complainant’s father has presently reached.

(b) The Applicant/Complainant had gone for criminal prosecution against the respondents and therefore some time was lost before filing this complaint.

(c) That the father of the Applicant/Complainant is having about 90% chance of survival and he is trying every way possible to restore his father’s health. However, the huge medical expenses which is not affordable for the Complainant.

(d) Therefore, the Applicant/Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Commission for compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by the family because of this event and for deficiency in service, medical expenses, future medical expenses, and recurring medical expenses, pain and suffering and the mental trauma suffered by the family of the complainant.

(e) The delay in filing the Complaint is neither wilful nor wanton. If the delay is not condoned the Applicant/Complainant will be put to irreparable loss and hardships.

6. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party filed his reply through IA No. 20478/2017. He vehemently argued that the Complaint was filed almost after five years after the cause of action. It was not a continuous cause of action. The grounds explained in the application for the condonation of delay are vague, baseless and misconceived. Even assuming the cause of action had occurred on 25.08.2012, the present Complaint ought to have been filed within two years, but it was filed after delay of more than 954 days.

7. The learned Counsel for OP further argued that the ground taken by the Complainant that he was busy in pursuing the criminal proceedings is not legally tenable. He has not produced any documentary evidence to satisfy such huge delay and the day to day explanation was not given.

8. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, (I) 1, Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 5 SCC 459, wherein it was observed as under:—

“We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the re