BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
I.A. No. 53(B)/2017
in
C.C. No. 54/2017
ORDER DATED: 30.01.2018
Complainant:
K.B. Balachandran, I.P.S (Retd), Komayil, MARA-83A, Anchumukku Road, Muttada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Chandrasekharan Nair)
Opposite parties:
- M/s Indigo Airlines (Inter Globe Aviation Ltd.), Indigo Central Wing, Ground Floor, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001 represented by Managing Director.
- Ekta Sreevastava, Manager in charge of Indio Airlines, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
(By Adv. Rajesh Kumar. K)
ORDER
This I.A filed by complainant to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the complaint and to save limitation as per Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that due to illness of wife and children and due to family problem. Opposite party appeared and filed objection stating that the complainant is allegedly aggrieved by an incident which occurred on 30.11.2014. The present complaint has admittedly been filed only on or after 03.02.2017, i.e after a lapse of 2 years and 64 days from the said date. The complainant seeks to justify the said delay in filing the complaint on the ground of alleged sickness of his wife and daughter. At this juncture it may be noted that other than stating a vague averment that his wife and daughter were sick, neither the complainant stated any details/incidents of the said alleged sickness nor the complainant adduced any proof to show that the alleged sickness of his wife and daughter contributed to the entire delay of over 2 years in filing the present complaint, which is the statutorily provided period in terms of Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1956. The complainant was not suffering from any sickness and was physically well. However, having failed to file the present complaint within the statutorily provided period, the complainant, through the present application, is trying to take away the legal right of the opposite parties acquired by them through efflux of time. Also the complainant has only sought to justify the delay beyond the period of 2 years, i.e; only for a period of 64 days on the alleged ground of sickness of his wife and daughter. In the absence of any sufficient proof as to why the present complaint could not be filed within the statutory period, the present application ought to be dismissed. The complaint was filed on 03.02.2017, the alleged sickness of the wife and daughter or their treatment has not even find a place in the complaint. If the claim of the complainant was genuine, naturally the said facts will form part of the complaint. The said alleged facts are shown only when the present petition for condoning the delay filed on 21.02.2017. It itself shows that the inclusion of the said alleged sickness is only an afterthought and is an attempt of the complainant to get over the bar of limitation without any justifiable basis. While asking for condoning the delay, an applicant is liable to justify each day of the delay by furnishing adequate proof. However, the complainant has sought to justify the delay in the present case merely by making a bald averment of sickness of his wife and daughter. It is a settled law that a complaint shall not be admitted after a lapse of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen without the complainant showing sufficient cause for such delay. Heard. There is no sufficient cause proved by the complainant and no cogent evidence produced. Hence I.A dismissed without cost.
In the result, I.A dismissed without cost and complaint dismissed as barred by limitation under Sec. 24 A of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
