Consumers must provide substantial justification for delays in appeals; ignorance of law is insufficient.

Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. The Applicants / Appellants herein being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur in RBT/CC/18/361-

Atiya Parvin and one other V/s Oriental Insurance and one other, whereby complaint was partly allowed and complainant is constrained to approach this Commission by preferring appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 along with Application for condonation of delay of 1106 days.

2. Applicant No.1 is housewife and applicant No.2 is ordinary car mechanic and both are not highly educated. Earlier matter was given to some other advocate. For considerable time applicants were not aware of passing of the judgement. Earlier advocate did not hand over the case papers to the applicants.

3. As such it was virtually impossible for the applicant side to take second opinion from some other advocate in the abovesaid matter. Eventually the applicants applied for the entire case record on 18/10/2023 and which was obtained on 10/14/2023. Thereafter the applicants on the basis of the case papers approach the new counsel herein to discuss about the scope of appeal and after much thought and deliberation instructed to counsel to go ahead with the filing of appeal.

4. As applicants did not keep well for some time and hence unable to file appeal. There is delay of

1106 days which may be considered sympathetically.

5. Non-applicant filled reply on 31/07/2024. At the outset Non-applicant strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that each and every allegation regarding causing delay because of the previous counsel is false and imaginary. Moreover, it is nowhere mentioned that the applicants have taken any efforts to get themselves acquainted with the final order/judgement.

6. The explanation for causing huge delay of more than 5 years because of health reasons and due to improper state of mind is rather unbelievable.

7. Non-applicant further submitted that there is a delay of 1106 days only as tried to be explained, whereas it is clear from the face of record that the free certified copy of order was issued to the Appellants/Complainant on 30/01/2019 Therefore, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that in spite of issuance of free certified copy on 30/01/2019, the complainants/appellants was further required to take unreasonable number of days to take decision for filing the appeal and there is only 1106 days delay is caused in filing the Appeal. On the contrary, there is delay of 1805 days in filing the present appeal, which appears to have been caused only because of lethargic and unprofessional approach on the part of the appellants as well their counsel and the alleged lame explanation was given just in order to cover up the inordinate delay caused in filing the appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. Robin Somkuwar, learned advocate for the applicant. Mr. Yogesh Rahate, learned advocate for the Non-applicant.

9. We have observed that the free certified copy of order was issued to the Appellants/Complainant on 30/01/2019. The applicants has miserably failed to explain the delay so v caused and inaction on the part of applicants from 30/01/2019 to 17/10/2023 even after the receipt of the second copy of the order from 11/11/2013 to 08/02/2024 for not filing the appeal.

Later on appeal filed on 11/02/2024.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that the ignorance of law is no excuse for condoning huge delay of more than 5 years. Therefore, the reasons stated in the application for causing such inordinate delay of 1805 days cannot said to be genuine reasons or such persons are entitled to seek any relief from this Commission f