HARI RAM vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Learned counsel for petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner wants to pursue with present revision petition. Along with present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 60 days has been filed. However, as per office note there is delay of 51 days.

Be that as it may, arguments heard on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits.

Order after lunch.

ORDER

(AFTER LUNCH)

Petitioner/Complainant has filed this revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') against impugned order dated 30.12.2014, passed by State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P. Bhopal (for short, ''State Commission'') in Appeal No.1455/2014. Along with this revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 60 days has been filed. However, as per office note there is delay of 51 days.

Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before District Forum, against Respondent/Opposite Party seeking compensation of insurance for loss of wheat and damage to machine amounting to Rs.8 Lacs in all.

Consumer Complaint was contested by the respondent.

District Forum vide order dated 06.05.2014, dismissed the complaint observing that tractor in question was being run in violation in terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that, though petitioner was at fault in not properly prosecuting the appeal before the State Commission, but he be given liberty to pursue his appeal before the State Commission and in the interest of justice, impugned order may be set aside.

Impugned order passed by the State Commission read as under:- "30.12.14 None for the appellant.

This appeal is pending since 22.7.2014. No certified copy of the impugned order has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant though prayed for time twice, but the certified copy has not been filed.

It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. It is dismissed for want of prosecution."

As per impugned order, appeal before the State Commission was filed without the certified copy of the impugned order. Be that as it may, petitioner was given enough time to file the certified copy and for that purpose, matter had been adjourned twice but still petitioner did not file the same.

In view of the above circumstances, the State Commission has not committed any illegality and has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it.

Even after dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner did not become vigilant and alert. He had filed the present revision petition in a casual and lethargic manner, as there is delay of 51 days also in filing of the present revision petition.

Moreover, the ground on which condonation of delay has been sought by the petitioner is, that in March-April, 2015, he had suffered from Jaundice and was advised to take complete bed rest for one month. However, petitioner has not filed on record any medical record, such as any prescription or any medical certificate, advising rest for a period of one month.

Thus, it is manifestly clear from the above conduct of the petitioner, that he was negligent in pursuing his appeal before the State Commission and even after dismissal of his appeal, petitioner did not become wiser and has continued to pursue his revision petition in a casual, leisure and careless manner. Thus, no ground whatsoever is made out for condoning the delay in filing of the present revision petition. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay stand dismissed. Consequently, the present revision petition also stand dismissed, being barred by limitation.

No order as to costs.