JUDGMENT - RANE M.S., President:---This application has been moved by the applicants/original appellants seeking condonation of delay of 210 days in filing this appeal. 2. Perused the said application. 3. (For brevitys sake applicants herein after are referred to as "Insurance Co." and respondent as "Complainant"). 4. Insurance Co. has filed the appeal against the order dated 30-8-02 passed by Additional District Forum, Pune in the complaint of the complainant mentioned above, holding the Insurance Co. being deficient in the matter of processing the claim of the complainant being the subject matter of consumer dispute and so holding has ordered the Insurance Co. to pay the amount as mentioned in the impugned order with 9% interest, plus Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. 5. On own showing of the Insurance Co. that it received copy of the impugned order on 30-4-02, whereas the appeal herein has been filed on 5-9-03. 6. Both these dates would clearly bear out the time lag between the receipt of copy of the order in question and the date of filing of the appeal. 7. In the application herein, in paragraph 8, this is how the Insurance Co. has sought to explain the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal. "8. The appellants submit that initially the matter was handled by the Appellants Divisional Office at Pune and after the order was passed against the appellants, the captioned file was transferred to the regional office at Mumbai for their advise. In the said transmission, the certified copy of the Order got misplaced. The same was traced and was found on 30th April, 2003 and immediately the appeal was taken before this Honble Forum. These appellants submit that the delay in filing this appeal has not been caused wantedly but due to unavoidable circumstances and no fault on behalf of the appellants. The appellants submit that for the above said just and sufficient cause the delay may be condoned." 8. Before we analyse and offer our comments on the explanation assigned, we propose to note the submissions advanced across by and on behalf of the learned Counsel of the Insurance Co. 9. Firstly, it was submitted that the Insurance Co. is a Public Body and as such, is custodian of public fund and since on merits, it has fairly goods case, in the interest of justice, delay be condoned. 10. 9. Firstly, it was submitted that the Insurance Co. is a Public Body and as such, is custodian of public fund and since on merits, it has fairly goods case, in the interest of justice, delay be condoned. 10. Second submission advanced is to the effect that one official of the Insurance Co. (although his name was mentioned across, but not in the application, we refrain from making specific reference thereof in the judgement herein) to whom the matter herein and other matters of the same type were entrusted had "misplaced the orders" and "mishandled the matters" and that action is being contemplated against the said official. 11. As far as first point is concerned mentioned herein above, we wish to state that as recently held by the Supreme Court, before the judicial forum everyone is equal and no one can claim a special privilege, even for that matter, the Government of Public authority as is done in the matter herein. Honble Apex Court in its one of the judgements has taken departure from earlier approach and has proceeded to hold that before judicial forum no party can claim a special privilege which will conflict with the statutory provisions and constitutional mandate that every one is equal before the Law. 12. In this context, we are mentioning certain few things in the judgement herein. The Insurance Co.-applicant herein claims being a Public body and as such custodian of public fund. It is expected and it will be reasonable to expect as well that this fact is borne in mind by its concerned employees at the helm of the affair and conduct themselves properly and act with circumspect and exercise the caution and reasonable care needed in discharge of their duties as officials of the Public body in ensuring to protect the interest of their employers. It is not necessary at this stage to detail the responsibility attached to the job, as also to mention about accountability attached to the officials associated in the Public sector like the Insurance Co. It is not necessary at this stage to detail the responsibility attached to the job, as also to mention about accountability attached to the officials associated in the Public sector like the Insurance Co. herein and if indeed, there is dereliction in duty as is the case presented by and on behalf of the Insurance Company, on part of its any employee, resulting in causing financial loss to it, then nothing will prevent it from taking suitable action against such errant officials and if necessary, holding them personally and individually responsible and accountable to the extent that the Public body like the Insurance Co. herein suffers financial losses. 13. We wish to note that above reproduced portion of the application is delightfully silent as to the precise action taken against such delinquent official and outcome in that behalf. 14. Now coming to the second point noted herein above, we have already dealt with the same while considering the first submission advanced by the learned Counsel as mentioned herein above. Further, it is noticed that no particulars such as period during which file remained in the Divisional Office of the Insurance Co., when and how the said file was transferred to the Regional Office at Mumbai, in what circumstances and how the certified copy of the order got misplaced, when and in what circumstances misplaced copy of the certified copy of the order was traced on 30-4-03 and who traced it, etc. All these aspects have been kept absolutely unexplained and no requisite particulars in that behalf have been given. 15. We further wish to add that even the concerned official who traced the misplaced order has not filed the affidavit and explained when, whether and in what circumstances the file was traced. 16. It must be borne in mind that under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 30 days time is provided for filing appeal from the date of the order and the proviso of the said section envisages entertainment of appeal after the expiry period of 30 days in the event of appealing party satisfying that there was sufficient cause, which prevented it from filing the appeal. We reproduce the proviso of said section 15. 17. We reproduce the proviso of said section 15. 17. "Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not finding it within that period." 18. It is well settled position of the law that sufficient cause would mean the cause beyond the control of the party concerned which prevented it from taking necessary action in the matter. Party in such circumstances has to clearly, explain and explanation offered must be convincing cogent and appeal to the reason. In the instant case, as pointed out herein above, all these elements are delightfully wanting. On the other hand, vague statements have been made without requisite particulars. 19. It must further be noted that the party does not get right of appeal as a matter of right, but it is a statutory right and while availing of the statutory right, party will be permitted to do so within the four corners of the provisions of the statute. 20. We may usefully make reference to the judgement of this Commission in M.A. 1539/02 in A/1214/02 in C/42/99 delivered on 24th March, 2003 in the case of (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tarini Nikhare)1, and reported in 2003(3) C.L.D. i.e. Consumer Law Decisions Page 606, in which the issue which was highlighted by and on behalf of the Insurance Co./applicant as a cause for delay in filing appeal that there was inter departmental consultation and we on consideration of the statutory provisions, as also the factual aspects involved therein and surveying the judicial pronouncements on the point, in particular, of the Supreme Court in the cases of (Collector Land Acquisition Officer v. Master Katiji and others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353 and in the case of (P.K. Ramchandra v. State of Karnataka)3, reported in A.I.R. 1998 Supreme Court 2276. We have followed the ratios in both the judgements to the effect that the Government Authority does not enjoy any special privilege as posited by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353 (supra) and in the judgement of the A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2276. The Supreme Court has posited that law of limitations being enabling provisions, have to be construed strictly and it should be ensured that valuable rights accrued to the other party, because of lapse on the party concerned are not deprived with. The Supreme Court has posited that law of limitations being enabling provisions, have to be construed strictly and it should be ensured that valuable rights accrued to the other party, because of lapse on the party concerned are not deprived with. We reproduce relevant portion of our said judgement in the case of National Insurance Co.s case on the point appearing in paras 20 and 21 of the said judgement. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in its judgement in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji others, reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353 has held, rejecting the contention of giving liberal approach in case of Government body, in considering plea for condonation of delay, as done in the case herein, positing that the Doctrine of equality before law demands that all the litigants, including the state as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law administered in an even-handed manner. Usefully reference be made to yet another decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and another, reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2276, wherein it is laid down that Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It be mentioned in the said case before the Supreme Court the party involved was the State of Kerala. 20. Therefore considering the factual aspects as obtained in the matter herein and the settled position of the law, we hold that there is a failure on the part of applicants/Insurance Co. to explain the delay by assigning reasonable and convincing explanation therefor. 21. Consequently application has to be rejected. ORDER 1. Application being No. 2659/2003 stands, rejected. 2. Since the application for condonation of delay stands rejected, Appeal being No. 1377/2003 also meets the natural fate of rejection. 3. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. Application rejected. -----