State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijay Kiran Sehgal vs M/S Birla Sun Life Insurance Company ... on 1 October, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37 A,CHANDIGARH
Misc. Application No.306 of 2024
In/and
First Appeal No.118 of 2024
Date of institution : 03.03.2024
Reserved on : 27.09.2024
Date of decision : 01.10.2024
Vijay Kiran Sehgal S/o Sh.Kiran Kumar Sehgal R/o H.No.B-XI-414,
Shahpur Road, Opposite Khalsa National School, Kapurthala, Punjab
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., One India Bulls Centre,
Towers 1, 5th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, Elphinstone Road,
Mumbai-400013 through its Incharge/Chief Manager.
2. M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market
Kapurthala, through its Incharge/Chief Manager.
....Respondents/opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Kapurthala in CC/846/2016
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. P.S. Bhangu, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER Misc. Application No.306 of 2024 (Delay) The applicant/appellant has filed this application alongwith appeal for condoning the delay of 407 days in filing the appeal on the grounds that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 08.09.2022, was delivered through post at the residential address of FA No.118 of 2024 2 the applicant after 3-4 days of passing the same. The applicant was out of station for his work and he only came to know about passing the impugned order in the first week of October 2022. The applicant contacted his counsel regarding passing of the impugned order, who informed about the dismissal of his complaint. Thereafter, in the first week of January 2023, the applicant contacted another counsel for filing appeal before this Commission. However, on 15.02.2023, his relative(Bhabi) had died and thereafter on 18.03.2023 his father in law had expired. Thereafter, on 14.05.2023 the father in law of his sister died and on 17.07.2023, a heart Surgery of his 'Bhabi' was got conducted at DMC Hospital Ludhiana. Even in the month of August 2023, the appellant suffered viral infection due to which he could visit the office of the counsel for filing of an appeal. It was only in the month of December 2023, the appellant met his counsel and handed over the copy of the order, who further asked the appellant to provide complete documents. Thereafter, the appellant procured the required documents and sent the same to his counsel, who filed the present appeal before this Commission for challenging the impugned order. The applicant/appellant has submitted that due to the said reasons, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period and a delay of 407 days has occurred, which is neither intentional nor deliberate, and prayed for acceptance of the present application.
2. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents, who appeared through counsel and filed written reply, wherein it was stated that the present appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation as the complainant has not showed any sufficient cause for condoning of such an inordinate delay. The story put forward by the applicant is FA No.118 of 2024 3 false, vague and after thought. After denying the other averments made in the application the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present application as well as appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
4. As per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 45 days period has been granted for filing the appeal, provided, if any, sufficient cause is given for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Although the sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act because it would vary from the facts and circumstances of each and every case. This time limit has been prescribed in the Act itself just to expedite the matter in granting the relief to the aggrieved consumers and this cannot be taken as a matter of right and the courts can exercise its powers with discretion to condone the delay with proper explanation.
5. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", 2011(14) SCC 578 whereby it has been held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the appeal and revision in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated petitions are to be entertained.
6. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case "Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) By LRs. Vs. State of A.P. & Others", FA No.118 of 2024 4 2011 (2) RCR Civil -880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para -26 observed as under:-
"Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly".
7. In the present case, the applicant/appellant has pleaded that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 had been delivered at his home after 3-4 days of passing the same. Accordingly, if it is assumed that the certified copy of the impugned order was delivered on 13.09.2022, then the statutory period to file the appeal expired on 28.10.2022, however delay of 407 days has occurred as the applicant was out of station for his work and thereafter, due to sudden demise of his relatives. Further, due to heart surgery of his relative (Bhabi) as well as his ill health due to viral infection, he could not approach his counsel for filing the appeal in time. Be that as it may, the plea of the applicant is not tenable as the applicant took an inordinate long delay of 407 days in filing the appeal despite the fact that he was very much aware of the proceedings and the same were in his complete knowledge. Moreover, no medical record qua his aliment as well as ailment of his relatives have been placed on record to prove his version. In such a scenario, we are of the opinion that the applicant is having a casual approach and has not dealt with the FA No.118 of 2024 5 matter seriously. The explanation for the said delay is also not sufficient for condoning the delay. The very purpose of the Act would be defeated in case the delay is condoned without any sufficient ground. Consequently, we do not find any ground to condone the inordinate delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay and the same is hereby dismissed.
Main Appeal
8. Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the present appeal is barred by time and is ordered to be dismissed in-limine as time barred.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) Presiding Judicial Member (KIRAN SIBAL) Member October 01, 2024 dv