State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Prem Lata. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 December, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Misc. Application No. : 133/2019
First Appeal : 127/2019
Date of Presentation : 14.03.2019
Order reserved on M.A. : 24.09.2019
Date of Order on M.A : 11.12.2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prem Lata wife of Shri Hem Chand Sharma R/o VPO Dharampur
Tehsil Kasauli District Solan (H.P).
...... Applicant/Appellant/Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Solan near
M.C. Office Solan Rajgarh Road District Solan (H.P) through its
Senior Branch Manager/Branch Manager/Authorized Person.
......Non-applicant/Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Chauhan vice Mr.
Rakesh Thakur Advocate.
For Non-applicant : Ms. Tenzin vice Ms. Seema Sood
Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present order shall dispose of application filed for condonation of delay of 143 (One hundred forty three) days in filing appeal.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019 Brief facts of matter :-
2. Smt. Prem Lata complainant filed consumer complaint before learned DCF/DCC Solan (H.P) on dated 06.06.2018 pleaded therein that vehicle in question met with accident in the year 2009 and thereafter Insurance claim was filed before Insurance company and Insurance company repudiated the Insurance claim on dated 30.06.2010. It is pleaded that driver engaged by complainant was having another licence which was issued by RLA Rajgarh. It is further pleaded in the consumer complaint that complainant remained busy in another matter before Workmen Compensation Commissioner Sirmaur at Nahan and complainant also remained busy in another matter before Hon'ble High Court of H.P till 26.12.2017 when matter was finally disposed of by Hon'ble High Court of H.P on dated 26.12.2017. It is pleaded that applicant filed condonation application under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for condoning delay in filing consumer complaint.
3. Learned DCF/DCC dismissed the application filed under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and did not condone the delay. Learned DCF/DCC held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to condone the delay of more than seven years in filing original consumer complaint relating to O.D claim of vehicle in question. 2
Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019
4. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainant filed present appeal before H.P. State Commission. Alongwith appeal complainant filed application for condonation of delay of 143 days in filing appeal. It is pleaded in the condonation application that Advocate engaged by complainant namely Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta informed about order of learned DCF/DCC dated 19.09.2018 in the last week of September 2019. It is pleaded that certified copy of order received by applicant in the month of October 2019. It is pleaded in the condonation application that thereafter applicant contacted some other Advocate and other Advocate told that appeal could not be filed in winter vacation. It is further pleaded that delay in filing appeal was bonafide in nature and was not intentional in nature. Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal sought.
5. Per contra response filed on behalf of non- applicant pleaded therein that applicant has not explained delay in a satisfactory manner. It is pleaded that there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. It is further pleaded that delay in filing appeal was intentional in nature and was not bonafide in nature. Prayer for dismissal of condonation application sought.
3
Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019
6. We have heard learned Advocates for parties and also perused the entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present application.
1. Whether there are sufficient causes for condonation of delay of 143 (One hundred forty three) days in filing appeal as mentioned in memorandum of ground of condonation application and whether ignorance of law is a valid excuse for condonation of delay in filing appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Applicant filed affidavit Ext.AI in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that applicant is simple rustic villager and she authorised her Advocate Shri Bharat Bhushan to file consumer complaint and represent her before learned DCF/DCC. There is recital in affidavit that learned Advocate engaged by applicant informed about final order passed under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in the last week of September 2019. There is recital in affidavit that thereafter deponent consulted other Advocate at Shimla and other Advocate at Shimla advised deponent to engage some other Advocate to file appeal before State Commission at Shimla. There is recital in affidavit that deponent could not file appeal due to holidays in Hon'ble High Court and due to factum that learned Advocate to whom deponent intended to engage had gone to his native place. There is recital in 4 Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019 affidavit that learned Advocate informed that appeal could not be filed in the month of January due to winter vacation in H.P. State Commission. There is recital in affidavit that delay in filing appeal was not intentional in nature but was bonafide in nature.
9. Non-applicant filed affidavit of Ms. Neetu Prakash Assistant Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that applicant has not explained long delay in satisfactory manner and there are no sufficient grounds to condone the prolong delay in filing appeal.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that final order of learned DCF/DCC dated 19.09.2018 was informed by learned Advocate engaged by applicant in last week of September 2019 and on this ground application filed by applicant for condonation of delay be allowed is decided accordingly. Applicant did not file affidavit of Advocate namely Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta that applicant was informed about passing of final order dated 19.09.2018 in the last week of September 2019. No reasons assigned by applicant as to why applicant did not file affidavit of Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta Advocate in order to prove above stated factum. Even applicant did not send any interrogatories to Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta Advocate as required under Consumer Protection Act. Plea of applicant 5 Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019 that Sh. Bharat Bhushan Advocate informed applicant about final order in the last week of September 2019 is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof).
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that due to holiday in Hon'ble High Court Advocate applicant intended to engage had gone to his native place and on this ground application filed for condonation of delay by applicant be allowed is decided accordingly. Applicant did not file affidavit of Advocate to whom she intended to engage in order to prove that Advocate was out of station due to winter vacation. Even applicant did not send any interrogatories to Advocate in order to prove that Advocate was out of station due to winter vacation. Plea of applicant that her Advocate had gone out of station during winter vacation is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof).
12. Even there is no evidence on record that applicant has contested O.D claim of vehicle in question before Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Hon'ble High Court of H.P. On the contrary complainant contested death claim of her employee before Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Hon'ble High Court of H.P. It is well settled law that O.D claim of vehicle in question and death 6 Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019 claim of employee are entirely two different concepts under law.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that due to winter vacation in H.P. State Commission appeal could not be filed within time is decided accordingly. Even during winter vacation registry of H.P. State Commission used to remained open in working days. No reasons assigned by applicant as to why applicant did not file appeal in the registry of State Commission when registry of H.P. State Commission was open even in winter vacation during working hours. It is well settled law that when sitting of State Commission are not held and when registry of State Commission remained open during working days then in that eventuality benefit of Limitation Act could not be granted for condonation of delay. See AIR 2017 Uttarakhand High Court page 177 titled Rajesh Kumar & others Versus State of Uttrakhand.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is rustic villager and she does not know about laws and on this ground application filed for condonation of delay in filing appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Applicant has signed condonation application and appeal in English language. Plea of applicant that applicant is illiterate rustic villager is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). Even 7 Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019 ignorance of Law is no excuse for condonation of delay. See AIR 1970 Orissa 197 Dr. Srinibas Sunder Dass Versus Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. See AIR 1972 Calcutta 430 M/s Kokarmal Gurudayal Versus Sagarmal Bengani. Sufficient causes for condonation of delay are (1) Illness (2) Imprisonment (3) Wrong proceedings taken in wrong court in good faith and bonafide mistake.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicant that delay in filing appeal was not bonafide in nature and was intentional in nature is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that valuable right has been accrued in favour of non-applicant and it is held that applicant did not explain delay in a proper and satisfactory manner. It is well settled law that proceeding under Consumer Protection Act are time bound proceedings. State Commission is of the opinion that if delay of 143 (One hundred forty three) days is condoned then object of expeditious disposal of matter under Consumer Protection Act 1986 will be automatically defeated. See AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. See 2019 (IV) CPJ 34 NC Central Government Health Scheme & Anr. Versus Awadhesh Prasad Sinha. See 2011(IV) CPJ 63 SC Anshul Aggarwal Versus New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. See 2018 (III) CPJ 53 NC Post Master Vs. Balram Singh Inaram Patel Lodhi. See. 2019(3) CPR 817 NC Housing 8 Prem Lata Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. M.A. No.133/2019 in F.A. No.127/2019 Commissioner Up Avas Vikas Parishad and Ors Vs. Shiv Charan Sagar. See 2019(II) CPJ 317 NC Jagatrai Pangi Versus Chief Construction Engineer & Ors. See. 2019(1) CPR 370 NC Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sheetal Surinder Kumar Chadha & Anr. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application for condonation of delay of 143 (One hundred forty three) days in filing appeal is dismissed. Consequently F.A. No.127/2019 is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission.
17. Certified copy of order be sent to learned DCF/DCC forthwith for information. Certified copy of order be sent to parties forthwith as per rules. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. M.A. No.133/2019 & F.A. No.127/2019 are disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member 11.12.2019 K.D 9