State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashok Kumar vs The New India Assurance Company on 22 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA PANCHKULA First Appeal No.2062 of 2006 Date of Institution: 31.08.2006 Date of Decision: 22.07.2010 Ashok Kumar son of Deen Dayal resident of House No.418/17, Railway Road, Rohtak. ..Appellant/Complainant Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager. ..Respondent-Opposite Party BEFORE: Honble Mr.Justice R.S.Madan, President Sh.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Mr.Ravinder Malik Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Varun Chawla Advocate for the respondent. ORDER
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN, PRESIDENT:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 08.08.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby while accepting the complaint of the appellant-complaint following relief was granted:-
Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled of the claim amount as per Survey Report Ex.R-7. Hence, we direct the OP to pay Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.8.1999 till its realization to the complainant. Further OP is directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- to the complainant.
Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant-complainant has come up in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation along with interest with the averment that his truck No.HR-46-8615 was insured for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.
Along with this appeal the appellant has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1963), seeking condonation of delay of 355 days in filing the present appeal with the averments that he was not aware about the intricacy of law and was under the wrong impression that his claim of enhancement from Rs.3,75,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/- could be taken up in the appeal filed by the opposite party-Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that now the appellant-complainant came to know that for claiming the enhancement of compensation he can file a cross appeal and due to this reason delay of 355 days in filing of the present appeal has occurred and the same may be condoned in the interest of justice and under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Heard.
A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. 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.
It is not denied that liberal approach is expected from the Court while dealing with the question of condonation of delay, but the fact cannot be ignored that law of limitation still exists in the statutes book and its provisions cannot be given goby in a casual manner. Each case has to be dealt keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. A heavy duty is cast upon the Court to keep in mind whether a valuable right has accrued to the respondent due to non filing of the appeal in time and in case any valuable right has accrued, the Court should be reluctant to condone the delay.
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.
Further the Honble National Commission in case U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandey & Anr., 2009(3) C.P.C. 595 has held that:-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 24A-Limitation-Condonation of delay-Revision petition filed with delay of 111 days-Reasons for delay is given that file was moving from table to table-Requirement of limitation is that such day to day delay should be explained-Reason given for delay is not sufficient-Petition dismissed as time barred.
The ratio of the above mentioned cases fully applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Having taken into consideration the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we feel that the appellant has failed to establish sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is not a delay for a week or month, rather it is delay of 355 days, therefore, valuable right which has accrued to the respondent-opposite party on account of non-filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation cannot be ignored.
Further we are of the view that the plea of condonation of delay of more than 355 days is also against the very spirit of the Act where the maximum period of limitation has been prescribed under Section 24-A as two years for filing the complaint and for filing the appeal the limitation has been prescribed as 30 days. In the Consumer Protection Act, three months time has been prescribed to decide the complaint from the date of receipt of notice and 90 days has been prescribed to decide the appeal from the date of its admission. These provisions have been incorporated with a view to dispose of the complaint as well as the appeal expeditiously. Ignorance of law is of no excuse to allow the application for condonation of delay. The reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay are general in nature and based on flimsy grounds and are not sufficient to allow the said application. Admittedly, the appellant has acted in a most lethargic manner, which is unwarranted, uncalled for. We are therefore, left with no other alternative but to dismiss the application of condonation of delay, hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Even on merits, it is a case wherein the truck model IBV 1996 LPT bearing registration No.HR-46-8615 was insured with the opposite parties-Insurance Company for the period from 16.4.1998 to 15.4.1999. In the intervening night of 14/15.4.1999 the above said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person. FIR No.45 dated 15.4.1999 under Section 379 IPC was registered by Sh.Ranbir Singh at police station Kharkhoda District Sonepat. Necessary intimation was given to the Insurance Company upon which Sh.R.K.Jain Surveyor was appointed who assess the loss of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- on written down value base.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as documents Ex.P-3 i.e. photocopy of the insurance certificate, Ex.P-4 photocopy of the registration certificate, Ex.P-5 copy of FIR. Ex.P-6 copy of National permit issued by RTA, Rohtak and Ex.P-7 surveyor report, we are of the view that the District Forum was justified while granted compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the complainant being registered owner of the vehicle, as per surveyor report Ex.P-7.
No case for enhancement of compensation is made out.
Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
22nd April, 2010 Justice R.S.Madan, President Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member