State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Reliance General ... vs Smt. Sukhwinder Wife Of Late Bhola Ram ... on 24 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First
Appeal No.942 of 2013
Date
of Institution: 20.12.2013
Date
of Decision: 24.12.2013
Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Officer, 88E, Model Town
near Jindal Chowk, Hisar, District Hisar, through Abhilash Chander, Assistant
Manager, Legal, authorized signatory and power of attorney holder of M/s
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 145-147, Second Floor, Sector 9C, Chandigarh.
...Appellant/OP No.4
Versus
1. Smt. Sukhwinder
wife of late Bhola Ram son of Sh. Chaudhary
Ram, r/o Village Dhani Masitawali,
Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
..Respondent-Complainant
2. Haryana
State through District
Collector, Fatehabad.
3. S.D.O (Civil), Fatehabad,
District Fatehabad.
4. District Social Welfare Officer, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.
Respondents-OPs No.1
to 3
BEFORE:
Honble Mr. Justice Nawab
Singh, President.
Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
For
the Appellant: Mr. T.K. Joshi,
Advocate.
ORDER
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:-
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by the complainant was disposed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. There is delay of 138 days in filing of the present appeal. It is well settled principle of law that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity and the delay has to be condoned if sufficient cause is shown by the appellant.
3. In the present case the appellant has taken the plea that the matter was fixed on 07.05.2013 for producing evidence on behalf of the appellant-insurance company. On the request of the counsel for the appellant, the case was adjourned to 24.05.2013 for compromise and thereafter adjourned to 04.06.2013 and 05.07.2013. On 05.07.2013, Sh. Gurdeep Grover, counsel for the appellant-insurance company made a statement before the District Forum that the matter had been compromised with the complainant and the company would make the payment of Rs.1.00 lac within one month and on the basis of his statement, the District Forum disposed of the complaint. Sh. Gurdeep Grover, Advocate was never instructed by the appellant-insurance company to make such a statement for compromising the case. He also did not inform the insurance company about the alleged compromise and impugned order dated 05.07.2013. On receiving summons of the execution petition filed by the complainant, the appellant-insurance company came to know about the impugned order.
The appellant then engaged another lawyer and filed an application dated 12.11.2013 before the District Forum which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2013 and that is why delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal has occurred. In our view this is not a sufficient cause to allow the application for condonation of delay.
4. The period prescribed for filing of appeal against the order of the District Forum is 30 days. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act, 1986, rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.
5. To deal with the situation, the Honble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that:-
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about has right must explain every days delay.
6. Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3104 of 2012 Ram Kishan versus UHBVNL, decided on 03.12.2012, has observed as under:-
3. The authorities cited by the petitioner in Para 4 of the application are also not applicable to this case. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special law which prescribes summary procedure. The appeal has to be decided within 90 days. There is delay of 250 days which cannot be condoned on frivolous grounds. The CP Act, 1986 prescribes its own period of limitation. The provisions of CP Act, 1986 must be followed strictly.
4. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.
5. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010, in which it was held that the party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.
7. This case is fully covered by the authoritative pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court and Honble National Commission and therefore the ground taken by the complainant is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, the application moved by the appellant for condonation of delay of 138 days is rejected.
8. Even on merit, there is no force in this appeal. The appellant-insurance company has challenged the impugned order taking plea that Sh. Gurdeep Grover, Advocate was never authorised to make any statement. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is not tenable in view of the statement made by Sh. Gurdeep Grover, Advocate, annexed at page 18 of the appeal. Once the matter has been compromised, the same cannot be challenged before the appellate authority. They should have sought the appropriate remedy available to them challenging the authority of the counsel and not by way of filing appeal. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
9. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed in limine both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal is ordered to be refunded to the complainant on expiry of period of limitation for filing revision/appeal, if any.
Announced:
24.12.2013 B.M. Bedi Judicial Member Nawab Singh President CL