Shanmugam Srinivasan vs National Insurance Co Ltd

AT the outset, it is observed that the Registry has noted a delay of 87 days in filing this revision petition. However, on perusal of the scrutiny sheet put up by the Registry and the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, it is seen that the impugned order was passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (''State Commission'', for short) on 1.12.2009 which was received by the petitioner on 10.2.2010 but the revision petition has been filed on 22.12.2011, i.e., after a delay of 589 days as correctly mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner.

WE have heard Mr. G.S. Shahdadpuri, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner on condonation of delay. In support of the delay, the petitioner has given the following reasons in para 4 (a) to (c) which are reproduced below:- "That R.P. could not be preferred in time because of various logical and sufficient reasons and was prevented by sufficient cause to have not filed in time as per law, namely, for which the R.P. could not be preferred in time as under:- a) That at time of argument before State Commission Appellate Authority his advocate did not appear and was absent and since relevant documents and appeal memo, relevant papers were with him. However, his presence was recorded during the course of argument by the State Commission Authority at Bombay. Due to his advocates mistake having not argued on his behalf appeal of Insurance Co. Respondent was allowed and heard and delivered judgement one-sided. b) That it shows no reasonable opportunity of argument was given resulted appeal allowed dt. 1/12/2009 against him. c) That as per principles of natural justice at least he should not be made to suffer for want of his advocate''s absence and mistake having not argued on his behalf relied upon the High Court and Supreme Court Judgement AIR 1994 HP Page 21, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1953 Page."

NAME of the advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the State Commission and also the action taken by the petitioner against him for the alleged non-appearance by him have not been given by the petitioner in the application. Apparently, the petitioner has not given reasons which could constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in question. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is from Chennai and he would stand to suffer if the delay is not condoned. In the absence of sufficient cause, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 589 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has not taken due care to pursue his complaint diligently. His application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. With this, the revision petition also stands dismissed. No costs.