National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kailash Chandrakant Bhalerao & Anr. vs I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance ... on 11 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3663 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 24/08/2012 in Appeal No. 120/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. KAILASH CHANDRAKANT BHALERAO & ANR. R/O VISHNUWADI TAQ, DISTRICT : BULDHANA MAHARASHTRA 2. SHRI SUHAS R.GADRE, THROUGH SHIVANI AKOLA,TQ & DISTRICT : AKOLA MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. I.C.I.C.I LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT ZENITH HOUSE, KESHAVRAO KHADE MARG, MAHALAKSHMI MUMBAI - 40034 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kakade, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Feb 2015 ORDER PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. Counsel for the petitioners present. There is a delay of 205 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The delay has been explained in para Nos.3,4,5,6 & 7, which are reproduced here as under:-
"3. That although the order was passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal bearing No. 120 of 2008 on 24.08.2012 the Petitioner had to apply for the receipt of the copy but the same could not be served upon the Petitioner until 30.11.2013 although it seems to have been issued on 20.11.2013.
4. That after the receipt of the order, the Petitioner was completely shocked to learn about the grave miscarriage of justice caused by the order of the Hon'ble State Commission. Petitioner immediately in January 2014 approached the Hon'ble State Commission in order to seek remedy for the redressal of the injury and damage caused by the order. He was then suggested to approach this Hon'ble Commission by the registry staff at the Hon'ble State Commission.
5. It took time for the Petitioner to arrange for a contact before this Hon'ble Commission at New Delhi so also to arrange for funds to reach New Delhi. Worthwhile to mention here that the Petitioner had purchased the vehicle so stolen on 04.11.2006 by availing loan from the bank and had to pay the entire amount even though the vehicle was stolen, thus even though he was not enjoying the vehicle he had to pay its instalments and was financially broken. Thus it took considerable amount of time to arrange for sufficient funds out of his earnings to challenge the impugned order before this Hon'ble Commission.
6. That somehow the Petitioner managed to arrange for funds and in the month of April 2014 came to Delhi and went to the Hon'ble National Commission, therein he learnt that the Commission requires translation for all the relevant documents so annexed with the present Revision Petition.
7. That the present Revision Petition involved annexures which were in vernacular and needed translation and the Petitioner had to translate the documents in English and he is not that conversant with the language, thus it took considerable time to translate those annexures".
2. It appears that the only reason for delay is that the petitioner did not have the funds to make translation, to engage a lawyer, he had also financial constraints, he was to pay the instalments of the vehicle and the reservation of the train was to be made.
3. I am unable to locate any substance in these arguments. The case is hopelessly barred by time. This fact neatly dovetails with the following authorities.
4. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), 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. Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.
6. The latest view was taken by the Apex Court in the case "Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.
7. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned and again delay of 78 days was not condoned in the case reported in M/s Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.07.2013.
8. Now, we turn to the merits of this case. Even on merits, the case of the petitioner is very weak. The theft of his vehicle took place on the night falling between 3rd Nov. 2006 and 4th Nov. 2006. The petitioner does not know the exact time of the theft itself. The information was given to the Insurance Company on 10.11.2006 after the theft had been committed but the petitioner very cleverly did not mention about the theft of the vehicle. It clearly reveals that he is a manipulator of the facts. Subsequently, on 13.11.2006 and 18.11.2006, the complainant after realizing that he had not mentioned about the theft, sent two letters regarding theft. Thus, the request of transfer of the Insurance Policy in the name of the complainant was given by the complainant on 10.11.2006, wherein he forgot to mention that his vehicle had been stolen. The delay explained by the petitioner does not just stack up. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to inform the Insurance Company immediately. The FIR was lodged 4 days after the theft. He has made a vain attempt to pull the wool in the eyes of the Law and the other person concerned therein.
9. Again, there is no evidence that the vehicle was properly parked. The same was parked on the open road. The State Commission noted that on the day of the theft, the driver parked the car on the road-side without adequate safety itself, which shows negligence on his part.
10. The view taken by the Supreme Court of India in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha-Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 decided on 17.08.2010, applies to this case to a hair, wherein it was held:-
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
11. The case is barred by time and on merits it is lame of strength. The Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER