State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aviva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Renu on 28 November, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 28.11.2013 First Appeal 1172/2012 (Arising out of the order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the District Forum-VI, M Block Vikas BHawan, IP Estate, New Delhi in complaint case No. 1736/2009) M/s Aviva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office: 2nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Head Office M/s Aviva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Golf Course DLF, Phase-V, Sector-5, Gurgaon, Haryana ....Appellant VS Mrs. Renu, W.o Sh. K.P. Vijay, R/o A-170, Sector-15, NOIDA, U.P. ..Respondent CORAM) JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT SALMA NOOR, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.1736 of 2009 is directed against the order dated 18.9.2012 of the CDRF-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the OP/Appellant was directed to refund Rs.12/- lakh along with interest, Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment & sheer suffering inclusive of litigation charges in which Rs.50,00/- should be deducted from the salary of the Branch Manager and Claim Manager Rs.25,000/- each.
2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal.
3. We have heard Ms. Amita Kumari, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri S.R. Sharma, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given for the delay is on account of some departmental internal problems. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explanation for delay has to be rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. Delay in official procedure is no exception provided in the proviso given under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for limitation.
5. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B.Bhavaneshwari, 2009(2) Scale 108, it has been observed:
We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petition stands properly examined. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.
6. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustive considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Orien Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under:-
We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed to redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time The expression sufficient cause employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statues is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106.
7. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed:
It is also opposite 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.
8. The law of the Supreme Court followed by National Commission and this Commission in this regard is well settled. Reference can be made to few of such recently decided cases cited below:
i) Delhi Development Authority vs. Gurinder Kaur Kohli-III 2010 CPJ 248 (NC)
ii) HUDA vs Krishna Devi III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iii) HUDA vs Randhir Singh III 2010 CPJ 202 (NC)
iv) Narayana I.I.T. Academy vs. R.K. Sharma III 2010 191 (DSCDRC)
9. Hence, the request for condoning the delay is turned down and the application for the purpose moved by the appellant is rejected.
10. Consequently we dismiss the appeal on the ground of its being time barred.
11 FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
12. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Arya