SAMSUDDIN vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal has been filed on 1.8.2002, against the order dated 27.11.2001, passed in Case No. 253/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short). As the appeal is time-barred the appellant has also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, together with an affidavit of the appellant dated 31.7.2002 has been filed. Another affidavit dated 17.4.2004 has also been filed. The appellant has also filed documents, as per list, in support of the application.

THE reasons for the delay assigned in the application are that the information regarding dismissal of complaint was given by the Counsel Mr. Hafijuddin belatedly on 23.5.2002. It is also averred in the application that the appellant is a very poor and uneducated person and after receiving knowledge regarding the impugned order he had to make necessary arrangements for funds for preferring the appeal and thereafter case was handed over to the Counsel Mr. A.N. Pandey at Bilaspur but the said Counsel returned the file on 30.7.2002 on the ground that the appeal is to be filed at Raipur and not at Bilaspur. As the appellant felt perplexed hence appeal could not be filed in time. It is further averred that the appellant was also suffering from cataract during proceedings before the Distt. Forum and that was also one of the reasons why the appeal could not be filed within time. THE appellant has also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. In the later affidavit dated 17.4.2004 the complainant/appellant has stated on oath that he was sick from 3.11.2001 to 18.9.2002 and suffered from ophthalmic problems as well as the problem relating to the nerves of the brain. The learned Counsel for the respondents, though did not file any written reply to the aforesaid application, but vehemently opposed the same during arguments. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record of the Distt. Forum.

The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that he has filed documents of medical treatment of the appellant for ophthalmic problems and reiterated that the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal in the application for condonation of delay are bona fide and under the circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. On the contrary the learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the application and alleged that the application does not disclose any good or sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal and hence the delay cannot be condoned. It was further argued for the respondent/insurer that cataract is not such a disease that renders a person totally incapable of movement. The other reason mentioned in the second affidavit regarding problem with the nerves of the brain is an after-thought as the same was not mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondent further argued that though it is mentioned in the later affidavit that the deponent was sick from 31.11.2001 to 18.9.2002 and for this reason the appeal could not be filed within limitation but surprisingly enough the appeal has been filed on 1.8.2002 i.e., within the aforesaid period itself when the appellant was allegedly sick, so the application is mala fide and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

WE find force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is a matter of common knowledge that in cases of contract the patient is neither bed ridden nor incapable of performing day-to-day work. From the documents filed by the appellant it is apparent that the appellant was treated as an out-door patient was not admitted to the hospital. It is also observed that the appellant has not stated that he was rendered totally incapable of movement. Such a disease cannot form good and sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Further the appellant has made contradictory statements. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, it is stated in the affidavit dated 17.4.2004 that the appellant was sick from 3.11.2001 to 18.9.2002 but it is apparent on the face of record that the appeal was filed before the State Commission, Bhopal on 1.8.2002. There is no reason why the appeal filed during the alleged illness of the appellant, could not be filed earlier within the period of limitation. The very fact of filing of the appeal itself reveals that the illness was not such as to render the appellant incapable of working. So far as averment in the application pertaining to delayed information regarding the impugned order is concerned, we are of the opinion that it is also not good ground for condonation of delay, as there has been considerable delay even after receiving information on 23.5.2002. In our opinion, the appellant has utterly failed to put forth any just and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal also stands dismissed. The appellant shall bear his own cost of appeal and pay that of the respondent which is quantified at Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only. Appeal dismissed.