State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company ... vs Neelam Mittal on 23 February, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.2018 of 2020
In/and
First Appeal No.307 of 2020
Date of institution : 01.12.2020
Date of Decision : 23.02.2021
1. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (formally known as
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited), Registered Office H-Block, 1st
Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-
through its M.D.
2. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (formally known as
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited), Corporate office at Reliance
Center, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz, (East) Mumbai,
Maharashtra
3. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited(formally known as
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited), 9th Floor, R-Tech Park, Nirlon
Compound, Near HUB, Goregaon East Mumbai-400064
4. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (formally known as
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited), Old Talwandi Road, Near SBI
Bank, Zira-142047.
5. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (formally known as
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited), at Mall Road, Opposite
Municipal Council Office, Ferozepur City
All through their authorized signatory Amit Rana, Branch Manager,
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance, available at SCO 123-124, Third Floor,
Above Reliance Jewels, Sector 17C, Chandigarh-160017
....Appellants/ Opposite Parties
Versus
Neelam Mittal aged 57 years wife of Kewal Krishan Mittal, resident of
House No.110, Street No.3, Near HP Gas Agency, Ferozepur Cantt,Tehsil
& District Ferozepur.
....Respondent/Complainant
Miscellaneous Application for condonation of
delay of 345 days in filing the appeal.
IN/AND
First Appeal against the order dated
21.11.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (now Commission),
Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be
allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No First Appeal No.307 of 2020 2 Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Manu Loona, Advocate for
Sh.Piyush Sharma, Advocate
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT
M.A. No.182 of 2021 (For placing on record certificate of corporation) Heard.
Misc. Application is allowed and the Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name attached with the application is taken on record.
Main Case This appeal, alongwith Miscellaneous Application for condoning the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal, has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now 'Commission'), Ferozepur (in short, "District Commission"), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant against Opposite Parties (in short 'OPs') under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed with Rs.5,000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and OPs were directed to pay Rs.5,45,719.20p as death claim of her husband namely Kewal Krishan alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization and directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of the Commission.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission. First Appeal No.307 of 2020 3 Facts of Complaint
3. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is widow of Kewal Krishan son of Badlu Ram and Kewal Krishan had expired due to brain tumour on 05.06.2018. It is averred that Kewal Krishan had purchased Life Insurance Policy No.52512229 from OPs on 25.1.2016 through OP No.4 with extended cover. The term of the policy was 15 years whereas payable premium was for ten years i.e. up till 25.1.2025, with base sum assured of Rs.4,54,766/- and sum assured on death is Rs.5,45,719.20p. Complainant is nominee in the said policy. The insured had paid the premium of Rs.69,999.71p annually and the policy remained operative at the time of death of the insured. It is further averred that in August 2016 Kewal Krishan, husband of the complainant suffered medical disturbances, so he was got medically examined and his various tests were conducted. He was diagnosed to be a case of brain tumour. He was got treated from various hospitals from August 2016 to June 2018 and was also operated at Max-Hospital, New Delhi, on 17.08.2016. He was discharged on 20.08.2016 from said hospital after the surgery of brain tumour and medicines were prescribed for the same. Thereafter, he came to his residence at Ferozepur. It is averred that Kewal Krishan after the surgery kept on taking the prescribed medicines and on 15.06.2017 he was examined for CT scan of head at G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot. Thereafter he was advised for MRI, which was done on 25.7.2017 at G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot. It is averred that some was abnormality detected in the report and insured was prescribed medicines and follow-up by the doctors. But the husband of the complainant could not survive and died on 5.6.2018 due to brain tumour. It is further averred that the complainant submitted the death claim form alongwith relevant documents with OPs for redressal of her claim but the same was repudiated by OPs by saying that insured was suffering from diabetes and hypertension. This First Appeal No.307 of 2020 4 ground is wrong and illegal and the act of the OPs falls under deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, she filed the consumer complaint with the prayer for issuance of a direction to the OPs to pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,45,719/- being the insured money with interest, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, OPs filed their joint written reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; life assured had suppressed the material facts with regards to his health condition. It is admitted that policy in question was issued on 25.01.2016 and that the life assured had expired on 5.6.2018. It is pleaded that on investigation, it was found that life assured had suppressed the material fact that he was suffering from DM, k/c/o since 6 years and hypertension since 8 years. It is pleaded that had the correct fact been known to the OPs, policy would not have been issued to the life assured. On merits, it is admitted that the husband of the complainant was insured with OPs and they reiterated their stand taken in preliminary objections. All other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for. Evidence of the parties and finding of the District Commission
5. Complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents i.e. claim form Ex.C-1 and policy schedule Ex.C-2. Whereas evidence of the OPs was closed by order vide order dated 7.11.2019.
6. The District Commission after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, accepted the complaint against OPs in the terms stated above vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal by the OPs, along with a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 345 days in filing the same.
M.A.No.2018 of 2020 (Grounds for Condonation of Delay) First Appeal No.307 of 2020 5
7. Brief facts, as averred in the application, are that the impugned order was passed on 21.11.2019 and certified copy might be received on 21.12.2019 by the Branch Office. Thereafter, the Branch Office informed the legal team at Mumbai through email about the order. It is averred that Ms. Priyanka Pritam, Asstt. Manager Legal, who is looking after the work of Punjab was on leave due to her marriage in December, 2019 and could not access e-mail received in this regard. It is further averred that hard copy of the order might have been received by the Mumbai office in her absence and the same did not come into her knowledge after resuming the office. Counsel also did not intimate the appellant regarding the decision passed in the matter. It is further averred that thereafter lockdown was imposed in the entire country and the offices of the Company were closed and the staff has worked from home. In the 3rd week of July, 2020, during the data reconciliation of the legal cases, legal team found the decision/order of the present case and thereafter on search, scan copy of the order received from Branch Office was found in e- mail. Thereafter, case was examined and it was found that order was wrongly passed as it revealed from the medical record that the deceased had concealed the material fact regarding previous ailment. Then applicants/appellants decided to file the appeal against the impugned order and sent e-mail to their counsel on 27.07.2020, who asked it to send the certified copy of the order as well as 50% of the awarded amount being statutory for filing the appeal. It is averred that in reply to counsel's e-mail, legal team vide e-mail dated 23.09.2020 informed that they are working from home and do not have the certified copy of the order and also informed that certified copy might have been misplaced and asked the counsel to get the certified copy from the District Commission for filing the appeal. It was applied immediately and was received on 08.10.2020. It is averred that demand draft of statutory amount was prepared on First Appeal No.307 of 2020 6 01.10.2020 and the same was immediately dispatched to the counsel. Thereafter, the appeal was drafted and was presented for filing the same in this Commission on 15.10.2020 but the Registry raised the objection that demand draft has been wrongly prepared in the name of Registrar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab and refused to accept the same. Immediately legal team was informed and they sent new demand draft No.782605 dated 03.11.2020 and the appeal was immediately filed. It is averred that the delay occurred due to reasons stated above, which is due to work from home by the staff as well as pandemic of Covid-19 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stopped the limitation to file the appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020, which is still operative. It is averred that the delay of 345 days is not intentional rather occurred due to above reasons. It is averred that the applicants have sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. It has been prayed that the application be accepted and the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned, in the interest of justice.
8. Respondent filed the reply to the application for condonation of delay stating that as per endorsement made on impugned order, it makes it clear that certified copy of the order has been received by OP No.5 on 16.12.2019, therefore, the applicants/appellants were well aware about the passing of the order. It is further pleaded that no document has been placed on record regarding the leave of Ms. Priyanka Pritam, Assistant Manager Legal and it proves that the applicants/appellants did not give importance to the judicial orders. It is pleaded that the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding limitation is not applicable in the present case because limitation in the present case will expire much before the imposing of lockdown in the country.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the application/appeal file carefully.
First Appeal No.307 of 2020 7Contentions of the Applicants/Appellants
10. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants vehemently contended that impugned order might be received on 21.12.2019 by the Branch Office and informed the legal team at Mumbai through email about the order but Ms. Priyanka Pritam, Asstt. Manager Legal, who deals with Punjab cases was on leave due to her marriage in December, 2019 so she could not access the concerned e-mail and hard copy of the order might have been received by the Mumbai office in her absence. It is pleaded that thereafter, lockdown was imposed in the entire country and the offices of the Company were closed and the staff is working from home and only in the 3rd week of July, 2020, during data reconciliation of the legal cases, legal team found the decision/order of the present case and came to know about the order. Thereafter, case was examined and applicants/appellants decided to file the appeal and immediately sent e-mail to their counsel on 27.07.2020, who asked it to send the certified copy of the order as well as 50% of the awarded amount being statutory for filing the appeal. Then legal team informed through e-mail on 23.09.2020 that they are working from home and asked the counsel to get the certified copy of order from the District Commission for filing the appeal. It is averred that thereafter, certified copy of the order was applied and received on 08.10.2020 and appeal was filed on 15.10.2020 but objection regarding wrong demand draft was raised by the Registry, which was then removed and their appeal has been immediately filed.
11. Learned proxy counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the reasoning given by the applicants/appellants is not genuine one and no benefit can be granted to the applicants/appellants and the application as well as appeal may be dismissed.
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. First Appeal No.307 of 2020 8
13. Admittedly, there is a delay of 345 days in filing the appeal. The contention of the applicants/appellants that certified copy might have been received on 21.12.2019 is not correct as from the perusal of the paid certified copy, it is clear that certified copy has been despatched to OPs No.1 to 4 on 22.11.2019 and same was supplied to OP No.5 on 16.12.2019 through Peon of District Commission. The copy sent by registered post on 22.11.2019 must have been received by OPs No.1 to 4 within a week. Furthermore, it is clear that about the passing of the impugned order, applicants/appellants had come to know on 16.12.2019 positively. The reason given that Ms. Priyanka Pritam, Asstt. Manager Legal, who deals with legal work of Punjab was on leave in December, 2019 due to her marriage and could not see the email. The said reason is also not justified because in the absence of her, somebody else must be looking after the legal work of the Company because legal work is of an important nature job and in the legal matters, Company needs to take immediate decision. This act shows straightway lapse on the part of the applicants/appellants as the statutory time provided for filing the appeal against the impugned order, is 30 days under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to which period the impugned order belongs. Otherwise also, it is admitted case of the applicants/appellants that they found the decision of the case in 3rd week of July, 2020. Thereafter also, casual approach as well as laxity is proved on the part of the applicants/appellants as still due to one reason or the other reason, appeal has not been filed before 01.12.2020. It is also not clear from the appeal file that the earlier applicants/appellants approached to file the appeal in October, 2020 and Registry raised any objection, rather, Registry raised objections on 01.12.2020. The applicants/appellants have adopted a careless and casual approach in filing the application and appeal. The law is settled that the delay can be condoned when it has been properly explained, but the delay First Appeal No.307 of 2020 9 due to casual approach cannot be condoned, at the asking of the applicants, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act for filing the appeals and revisions in consumer matters so that the consumers may get immediate relief regarding their grievance and if this aspect is ignored then the main object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated.
14. Second contention of the applicants/appellants is that their Offices were closed due to pandemic of Covid-19 and staff works from home. This contention of the applicants/appellants is also not justified because it is proved on record that they have received the copy of the order on 16.12.2019 and it is well known to the applicants/appellants that statutory time granted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing the appeal against the impugned order is 30 days, which lapsed on 16.01.2020, which is well before the imposing of the lockdown in the country. Therefore, no justifiable reasoning is given by the applicants/appellants for such a huge delay. With regard to the law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, there is no dispute that the superior courts have passed orders or issued instructions from time to time with regard to extension of limitation period and the applicants/appellants tried to take shelter of order dated 17.12.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.4085 of 2020 "M/s SS Group Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aaditiya J Garg & Anr." stating that lockdown was imposed in the country still persists. But it is clear in the order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No.3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for extension of limitation" that 'in case limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then period from 15.03.2020 till date on which lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the First Appeal No.307 of 2020 10 dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for period of 15 days after lifting of lockdown' and in another order it is granted upto 45 days under Commercial Courts Act. From the abovesaid order, it is clear that where lockdown is lifted, 15 days period is granted for the purpose of limitation and in the Branch Office of the applicants/appellants, lockdown is lifted on 04.05.2020 and limitation period extended is upto 20.05.2020 and if 67 days relaxation is granted to the applicants/appellants, still from the perusal of the file, it is clear that there is huge delay occurred in filing the present appeal and there is no justification coming forth for the delayed period i.e. before lockdown period and after lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional area. As it is specifically held by the Superior Courts in number of authorities that when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of one party, it is unreasonable to take away that right from other party on the mere asking of the applicants, when it is proved that the matter was being taken in most casual manner, without bothering for the law of limitation, so the relief sought on the basis of order dated 17.12.2020 is not favourable to the applicants/appellants, when their own laxity is proved on record. The Consumer Protection Act was specifically enacted for the speedy justice and if the aspect of limitation is ignored then speedy justice cannot be granted to the parties.
15. Perusal of the application as well as file shows that there is no explanation, what to say of plausible explanation given by the applicants/appellants regarding the delay occurred in filing the appeal i.e. after 27.11.2019, presumed date after one week from dispatch of the impugned order from 22.11.2019 or 16.12.2019, copy received by OP No.5 to 16.01.2020 from which date the period is extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So the reasoning given by the applicants/appellants does not justify the delay, specifically when the superior Courts passed the directions to explain the day-to-day delay.
First Appeal No.307 of 2020 11
16. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", 2011 (14) SCC 578 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 appeals and revisions 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.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others", 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter- 455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
"It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence".
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By LRs. Vs State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para- 26(relevant portion) 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".
19. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Oriental Arora Chemical Industries Limited Vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation", (2010) 5 SCC-459 observed as follows:-
"We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not First Appeal No.307 of 2020 12 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 for 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".
20. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case reported as "Union of India & Ors. Vs Hari Singh", 2009(4) RCR (Civil)-654, declined to condone the delay for taking the matter in casual manner. In Para-7, it was observed as follows:-
"Even otherwise, no explanation is forthcoming from 15.09.2004 to 18.01.2005 for not filing the appeal. The pleadings in application itself show that the matter was being taken in most casual manner, without bothering for the law of limitation".
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s)13348 of 2019 "The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Deo Kumar Singh & Ors.", decided on 09.05.2019 observed (relevant portion) as follows:-
".......We are of the view that a clear signal has to send to the Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as and when they please, on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any action against the concerned officers. No detail of this delay of 728 days have been given as if there is an inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Government. The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct.
That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012(3) SCC 563] We strongly deprecate the casual manner in which the Division Bench was approached and also this Court has been approached; the objective possibly being to get a certificate of dismissal from this Court. This is complete wastage of judicial time and the petitioners must pay for the same........."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s)9217 of 2020 "The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bherulal", decided on 15.10.2020 has observed as follows:-
"4. A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only "due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents". In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to "bureaucratic process First Appeal No.307 of 2020 13 works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs". 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.
6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as "certificate cases".
The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation.
7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.
8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.
9. The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid."
23. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be explained properly and sufficient cause for causing delay must be disclosed and the delay caused on account of dilatory tactics, inaction and casual approach cannot be condoned. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of delay of 345 days, except the period of relaxation of 67 days as granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. 345 - 67 = 278 days and each day's delay is required to be explained/justified. Thus, we First Appeal No.307 of 2020 14 do not find any ground to condone the huge delay of 278 days (345 days) in filing the appeal.
24. In view of the above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, being without any merit. Main Case
25. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, appeal also stands dismissed, being barred by time.
26. The applicants/appellants/OPs have deposited a sum of Rs.3,09,030/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 23, 2021.
as