ORDER

IA/10694/2024 (Impleadment of Legal Heirs)

The application seeks the impleadment of the legal heirs of respondent Pushkar Dutt Grover as Pushkar Dutt Grover has passed away.   As per the application Sh. Varun Grover, Smt. Ranjana Grover, Shruti Grover and Swati Grover have been described in para 3 as legal heirs of Pushkar Dutt Grover.

Application allowed. 

Let amended memorandum of parties be taken on record.

2.       Learned counsel for the respondent submits that all other legal heirs have authorized and given their NOC to Varun Grover, who is son of deceased Pushkar Dutt Grover to plead the matter on their behalf and the NOC is part of the District Commission’s record.  Ms. Ranjana Grover (wife of the deceased Pushkar Dutt Grover present in person confirms. No amicable settlement could be arrived at in the matter and so the matter is now being heard on merits.

3.       This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 19.10.2023 in  Appeal No. 508 of 2023  of the State Commission,  New Delhi.     

4.       It appears that feeling aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission the appeal was filed before the State Commission with substantial delay.  The delay condonation application was moved seeking the condonation for the same but it appears that the same did not find favour with the State Commission which proceeded to dismiss the application.  The appeal also, therefore, got dismissed concomitantly on the point of limitation. 

5.       Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents.  Perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order passed by the State Commission. 

6.       Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the application seeking condonation of delay which was moved before the State Commission has not been filed but the grounds pleaded therein have been referred to in the impugned Order and have been considered by the State Commission but they did not find favour.  Learned counsel has once again reiterated the grounds pleaded before the State Commission.  It has been submitted that initially the delay occurred because the authorized officer of the petitioner was not available in the office.  Later on when he resumed work he handed over the file to the competent representative of the appellant.  Further time got consumed because certain documents were not available and so attempts to retrieve the file from the counsel representing before the District Forum were made but he remained unavailable.  The file could be procured only in the third week of July but then the authorized representative became indisposed.  Since no instructions were given by the indisposed authorised representative to other colleagues steps could not be taken to prepare and file the appeal. Ultimately, though the appeal became ready to be filed but because of some glitch relating to the demand draft the appeal could be filed eventually on 25.09.2023 only.  Submission is that as the delay being not deliberate or intentional the same deserves to be condoned.    

7.       Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the grounds that have been pleaded and placed forth do not contain any cogency or credibility and they are just routine casual pleas and the explanations have been offered just for the sake of giving explanation, which do not deserve to be accepted. Contention is that the State Commission did not commit any error in not accepting the grounds and has rightly rejected the delay condonation application and there is no ground to interfere in the State Commission’s Order.

8.       At the very outset, the bench would like to observe that in the normal course, the advisable approach to be adopted in the matters which involve default of not filing the appeal or petition within the prescribed period of time, is to have an indulgent view towards such applicant as it is in the ordinary course preferably to decide the lis on merits rath