STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/348/2017 MANDEEP KUMAR PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O DARSHAN KUMAR ANAND R/O VPO GUHLA TEHSIL GUHLA DISTRICT KAITHAL ,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - SUBHKARAN MARKET RAILWAY ROAD KURUKSHETRA ,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

T P S MANN , PRESIDENT MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER MANJULA , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SHRI RAJESH DUHAN, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MS. SWATANTAR KAPOOR, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS DATED: 14/07/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.348 of 2017 Date of Filing:28.03.2017 Date of Order:14.07.2025 Mandeep Kumar Anand S/o Darshan Kumar Anand, R/o VPO Guhla Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

…..Appellant Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Subhkaran Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra.

2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, R.O. LIC Building, 2^nd Floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.

..…Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member Mrs. Manjula, Member.

Present:- Shri Rajesh Duhan, counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Swatantar Kapoor, counsel for the respondents.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

There is a delay of 568 days in filing the appeal.

2. Theappellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of 568 days wherein, it is alleged that appellant was poor three wheeler driver by profession.Due to damage of vehicle in question in an accident, the appellant spent huge amount on its repair. The appellant was having shortage of funds, so the delay in filing the present appeal has occurred. Thus, delay of 568 days in filing of the present appeal be condoned. Reply to the application for condonation of delay of 568 days has been filed by the respondent. The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the insured on the basis of the report submitted by the surveyor.

3. Arguments Heard. File perused.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional. He requested that delay may be condoned.

5. This argument is not available to the appellant. A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6. The inordinate delay of 568 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

The Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against ord