The J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, comprising President Smt. Nighat Sultana and Member Shri Maheep Gupta, has dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay and restoration filed by Savy Fashions Pvt. Ltd. against National Insurance Company Ltd. The Commission held that the complainant failed to justify the delay and could not shift the entire blame to its former counsel.

Facts:

The complainant, Savy Fashions Pvt. Ltd., had filed Consumer Complaint against National Insurance Company Ltd. before the District Commission, Jammu. The complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on August 9, 2010, after the complainant's counsel failed to appear. The record shows that the counsel had last appeared on November 9, 2009 and thereafter remained absent on several dates, including the date of dismissal.

The complainant attributed the delay to the negligence of its erstwhile counsel, alleging that the counsel neither informed it about the listing of the case nor about the dismissal of the complaint. It claimed that it came to know about the dismissal only on September 27, 2012, when it visited the court to ascertain the status of the matter.

The complainant subsequently filed an application for restoration before the District Commission on November 17, 2012. However, after realising that the District Commission lacked the power to review its own order, it withdrew the application on May 30, 2013, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Thereafter, Savy Fashion Pvt. Ltd. approached the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, seeking condonation of delay and restoration of the original complaint. The complainant contended that the delay was caused by its bona fide mistake in initially approaching the wrong forum and therefore deserved to be condoned.

Observations and decision:

The Commission observed that although the complainant could not ordinarily be made to suffer entirely for its counsel's negligence, it was also responsible for keeping track of its own case. The counsel had remained absent since November 9, 2009, yet the complainant claimed to have learnt about the dismissal only in September 2012.

The Commission further noted that the complainant was a private limited company and was expected to be more vigilant about its pending litigation. It found that no sufficient or reasonable explanation had been given for the delay in seeking restoration.

Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the application for restoration of the original complaint. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Appearances:

Ms. YASHODHAN THAKUR, (COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

SH. VISHNU GUPTA, (COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT)

Case Title: SAVY FASHIONS V/S NATIONAL INSURANCE

Case No.: R.P. NO. 521 OF 2013

Click Here To Read/Download Order