1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 16.02.2023  in Appeal No. 86/2015 of the State Commission Gujarat arising out of Order dated 31.12.2014 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 752 of 2009.

2.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 31.12.2014 of the District Commission, the Order dated 16.02.2023 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition and the petition.

3.       Concurrent finding returned by two fora below.  The District Commission had allowed the complaint granting the award in favour of the complainant and in the appeal filed against the same the State Commission affirmed the Order passed by the District Commission. 

4.       The present petition has been filed with self-admitted delay of 68 days. In view of the substantial delay in filing the petition the learned counsel has been heard on that aspect of the matter in order to see whether the delay deserves to be condoned or not.

5.       The application for condonation of delay is first being taken up.

6.       The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Order was passed on 16.02.2023 and the application to seek certified copy was moved on 24.04.2023 and the certified copy was made ready on 29.04.2023 and was received by the petitioner on 29.04.2023. The submission made by learned counsel is no different from what has been narrated in the application seeking the condonation of delay.  Further submission is that the petitioner sent the file to Delhi legal hub of petitioner on 09.06.2023 recommending to file the revision petition before the National Commission against the impugned Order dated 16.02.2023.  Thereafter the Delhi legal hub of petitioner sent the file on 16.06.2023 to the advocate for his opinion as to whether the revision petition should be filed before the National Commission.  The legal opinion was then obtained on 27.06.2023 that the revision petition should be filed.  Subsequently, the relevant papers were obtained and some time was consumed in the translation work also.  Eventually, the revision petition was filed on 24.07.2023 belatedly.  Submission is that where several offices are involved it takes time for the files to move from one place to another and the Commission should take a liberal view of the matter and the delay should be condoned.  Perusal of the record shows that all the submissions made are just reiteration of the contents of the delay condonation application moved on behalf of the petitioner which mostly speaks of the procedural aspects but it scarcely contains any such narration of the facts which may go to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.

7.       When the bench advert to the contents of para no. 3 of the delay condonation application it fails to understand as to why after the impugned Order having been passed on 16.02.2023 the application to obtain certified copy was moved on 24.04.2023 after more than two months.  Again it is wholly inexplicable as to how after obtaining the certified copy on 29.04.2023 itself the petitioner’s Surat Regional Office sent the captioned file to Delhi legal hub of the petitioner on 09.06.2023 again after a gap of more than one month. Further time consumed in the process of taking opinions etc. as has been claimed speaks of nothing except the managerial inefficiency in running the office of such an important company as that of the petitioner.  This is a matter in which the accident is said to have been taken place on 21.09.2007 some sixteen years back and the counsel for the petitioner has been at least fair enough to admit that the policy was valid at the relevant point of time and there is no dispute about it. In a matter like this the consumer who was having a valid insurance cover is still cooling its heels waiting for his claim to be honoured despite two concurrent findings awarded by the two fora below. In a matter like this the conduct of the petitioner in filing this petition after so much of delay, which is neither small nor insignificant, without any adequate explanation of the same, this bench feels disinclined to take a liberal view or to soft pedal the infirmity.

8.     The powers which have been conferred to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and certainly not at will either whimsically or capriciously. The discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment in this regard wherever provided.

9.      In the present case however one does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is palpably without worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming.

As such we have no hesitation in dismissing the application.

10.     Resultantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.