STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/1061/2023 HARPREET SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE MEHLANWALI, TEHSIL, JAGADHARI, DISTRICT YAMUNANAGAR,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THE ORIENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PRESENT ADDRESS - COMMERCIAL BELT, SECTOR 17, HUDA, JAGADHARI, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T P S MANN , PRESIDENT MRS. MANJULA , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SHRI PARTHANEJA, PROXY COUNSEL FOR SHRI NAMIT KHURANA, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 11/02/2026

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1061 of 2023 Date of Institution:14.09.2023 Date of Order:11.02.2026 Harpreet Singh S/o Shri Jaspal Singh, R/O Village and Post Office Mehlanwali,Tehsil, Jagadhri, District, Yamuna Nagar.

…..Appellant Versus The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Commercial Belt, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhri, through its Branch Manager.

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

Mrs. Manjula, Member.

Present:- Shri ParthAneja, proxy counsel for Shri Namit Khurana, counsel for the appellant

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

Complainant-Appellant-Harpreet Singh, has filed the instant appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby complaint filed by complainant-Harpreet Singhwas dismissed.

2. There is a delay of 714 days (As per Registry, there is a delay of 426 days) in filing the appeal. Theappellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of 426 days wherein, it is alleged that the file was handed over to the counsel for filing the appeal on 17.12.2022. The complainant met his counsel again on 05.05.2023 it was revealed that relevant papers for filing the appeal were missing from the file like copy of complaint, written statement etc. The complainant after collecting the said papers from the office of advocate handed them to counsel for the purpose of filing the appeal at Panchkula.Thus, delay of 426 days in filing of the present appeal be condoned.

3. Arguments heard. File perused.

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

5. This argument does not prevail. A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Consumer Commission. 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 426 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 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