State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Darshan Lal on 15 June, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 127 of 2015 Date of Institution : 03.06.2015 Date of Decision : 15.06.2015 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 570, Naigaum Cross Road, Next Royal Industrial Estates Wadala (W), Mumbai-400031 Branch Manager/Incharge, Reliance, Plot No.2 Tower F, Ist Floor, DLF Building, I.T. Park, Chandigarh - 160101. Branch Manager Servicing office Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist and IInd Floor SCO No.36-37, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala, Punjab 147001. All the above through Deputy Manager Legal Mr. Amit Chawla, S.C.O. No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. ......Appellants/Opposite Parties V e r s u s Darshan Lal s/o Sh. Desh Raj r/o Village Pandawala, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). ....Respondent/Complainant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.04.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-
"For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed partly. The OPs are directed as under :-
i) To make payment of Rs.7,70,000/- (IDV) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till realization on fulfilling the necessary formalities by the complainant, for which prior notice detailing the formalities to be complied with by the complainant shall be served by the OPs upon the complainant through registered post.
ii) To make payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment, agony and deficiency in service.
iii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.
This order shall be complied with by OPs within two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy; failing which the OPs shall pay the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization by the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs."
The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of truck bearing registration No.HR37C-3067, which was purchased by him, to earn his livelihood, got the same insured from the Opposite Parties, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, valid for the period from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.7.70 lacs, on payment of premium of Rs.21,672/-. It was stated that the said vehicle, was hypothecated, in favour of Sunderam Finance Ltd. It was further stated that the complainant had made the full and final payment of the loan amount to Sunderam Finance Ltd. It was further stated that, on night intervening 31.07.2012/ 01.08.2012, the said vehicle was stolen from the premises of Truck Union Dera Bassi, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali, where it was parked by Sh. Pawan Kumar, its driver, after getting it loaded, with a view to drive the same to the destination, on the next day. It was further stated that, as such, FIR No.141 dated 18.08.2012 (Annexure C-2) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was got registered in Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
It was further stated intimation regarding the theft of vehicle, in question, was also given to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant lodged claim, with the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that since the vehicle, in question, could not be located by the Police, as such, it filed untraced report before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi, on 24.05.2013. It was further stated that the complainant submitted certified copy of the closure report, alongwith the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi, to the Opposite Parties, and requested them to settle his claim. It was further stated that vide letter dated 22.04.2014 (Annexure C-5), the Opposite Parties insisted the complainant to submit the consent letter towards acceptance of 70% of the IDV, and also to submit original set of keys of the vehicle, in question.
It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 and requested it to settle his claim as per Insured Declared Value of the vehicle. It was also told by the complainant to the representatives of Opposite Party No.1, that he had been supplied only one key, by the previous owner of the vehicle, in question, from whom he had purchased the same. It was further stated that despite that, the Opposite Parties, failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay Rs.7.70 lacs (IDV), alongwith interest @12% P.A., from the date of theft, till realization; compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony, and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.
The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted that the complainant got the vehicle, in question, insured from them, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, valid for the period from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.7.70 lacs, on payment of premium of Rs.21,672/-. It was denied that the complainant had purchased the vehicle, in question, for using the same, to earn his livelihood. It was pleaded that since the complainant had purchased the vehicle, in question, for using the same, for commercial purpose, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer. Theft of the truck, in question, on the date and from the place, mentioned in the complaint, was admitted. It was denied that the Opposite Parties assured the complainant to finalize his claim. It was stated that the claim raised by the complainant, in respect of theft of the vehicle, in question, could not be considered, without the original set of keys thereof having been deposited by him. It was further stated that several request letters were sent to the complainant to provide the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, or to accept the claim, on non-standard basis, but he did not respond. It was further stated that when no intimation was received from the complainant, his claim was closed as "Final Closure" vide letter dated 22.04.2014, Annexure C-5, as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that despite a number of notices, having been served upon the complainant, he did not supply the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question. He further submitted that this showed that no reasonable steps were taken by the complainant, or his driver, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage, as a result whereof, theft took place. He further submitted that even the consent of the complainant was sought for payment of 70% of the IDV, but he did not respond to the same. He further submitted that since the complainant or his driver did not take reasonable steps, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage, there was breach of the provisions of Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and, as such, the appellants/Opposite Parties were legally justified in closing the claim of the complainant as "Final Closure" vide letter dated 22.04.2014, Annexure C-5, when no intimation was received from him, for accepting the same, on non-standard basis. He further submitted that there was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, but the District Forum, was wrong, in holding to the contrary. He further submitted that even the District Forum was wrong, in awarding interest @9% P.A., on the amount of IDV from the date of filing the claim and at the same time awarding compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in rendering service. He further submitted that interest and compensation could not be granted to the complainants, simultaneously. He further submitted that, as such, the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It was not disputed that the complainant got the vehicle, in question, insured from the Opposite Parties, vide the Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, valid for the period from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.7.70 lacs, on payment of premium of Rs.21,672/-. The factum that the vehicle, in question, was stolen, on the night intervening 31.07.2012/01.08.2012, from the premises of Truck Union, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali, where it was parked by the driver thereof, after getting it loaded for driving the same to the destination, on the next morning, was also admitted. It was also admitted that FIR No.141 (Annexure C-2) dated 18.08.2012, under Section 379 of the IPC, with regard to theft of the vehicle, was got registered. The factum of intimation of theft of the vehicle, in question, prior to the lodging of FIR was also admitted. It was also admitted that the Police could not trace the vehicle, in question. When the complainant requested the Opposite Parties, for the settlement of his claim, they asked him to deposit the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, but when he could not produce the same, they demanded consent letter for settlement of the same (claim) at 70% of the Insured Declared Value, on furnishing the stamp paper duly notarized.
The Opposite Parties considered the claim of the complainant, on non-standard basis, on the ground that he failed to take reasonable steps, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage, and, as such, there was breach of the provisions of Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The question arises, as to whether, the complainant or his driver failed to take reasonable steps, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage, or not. The vehicle, in question, was parked in the premises of the Truck Union, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali, on the night intervening 31.07.2012/01.08.2012. The premises of the Truck Union, by no stretch of imagination could be said to be an unsafe place for parking of the vehicles. It means that the driver of the complainant parked the vehicle, in question, at a proper place. No cogent and convincing material was brought on record, by the Opposite Parties, to prove that no reasonable steps were taken by the complainant, or his driver, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage. Under these circumstances, the assertion of the Opposite Parties that since no reasonable steps were taken by the complainant, or his driver, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage, does not have any legs to stand. Therefore, there was no breach of the provisions of Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, by the complainant or his driver, in any manner. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shri Girish Gupta, III (2014) CPJ 663 (NC),the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held that particular Clause 5 shall be read in the context of a person, deliberately doing an act that resulted into theft. If no willful act could be attributed to the insured, then this clause would not operate to exclude the liability of the Insurance Company. In the instant case, as stated above, no reliable evidence was produced, on the record, by the Opposite Parties, to prove that no reasonable steps were taken by the complainant, or his driver, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage. It was not that the vehicle, in question, was parked on the road side, or at a secluded place, away from the town, without locking the same. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that no wilful act could be attributed, to the insured or his driver, resulting into theft of the vehicle. The District Forum was also right, in holding that there was no breach of the provisions of Clause 5 of the Insurance Policy. The District Forum was also right, in holding that by not settling the claim of the complainant, and, on the other hand, closing the same, as "Final Closure" vide letter dated 22.04.2014, Annexure C-5, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service.
No doubt, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, when asked for, from the complainant was not supplied by him, and, as such, it could be said that there was wilful default on his part, in taking reasonable steps, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage. It may be stated here, that in his affidavit, by way of evidence, it was testified by the complainant that he was supplied only one set of keys by the vendor, from whom he had purchased the vehicle, in question. Since the complainant was only supplied one key by the vendor of the vehicle, from whom he purchased the same, the question of producing the second set of keys before the Opposite Parties, by him did not at all arise. No evidence was produced by the Opposite Parties, to prove that the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, had been supplied by the vendor of the same, to the complainant, at the time of purchase thereof. Had any cogent and convincing evidence, been produced by the Opposite Parties, in this regard, the matter would have been different. The mere fact that the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, could not be supplied by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, as it was not supplied by the original owner to him, from whom he purchased the same, did not at all go to prove that no reasonable steps were taken by the complainant, or his driver, to safeguard the vehicle, in question, from loss or damage. Had it been proved that the complainant was in possession of the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, but he wilfully and deliberately failed to provide the same, to the Opposite Parties, when demanded, the matter would have been different. In that event, it would have been said that it was on account of some deliberate act of the complainant, that theft of the vehicle took place. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties could not ask the complainant, to give his consent for settlement of his claim on non-standard basis. The Opposite Parties by closing the claim of the complainant, treating it as "Final Closure" vide letter dated 22.04.2014, Annexure C-5, acted illegally and arbitrarily. The District Forum was right in holding that the complainant was entitled to the IDV of the vehicle, as the same was not traced by the Police. The District Forum was also right in holding that by not settling the claim of the complainant on payment of the IDV of the vehicle, which had been stolen, the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service.
No doubt, it was also submitted by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that interest and compensation could not be granted to the complainant, simultaneously. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties does not appear to be correct. The words 'interest' and 'compensation' are sometimes used interchangeably and, on other occasions, they have distinct connotation. 'Interest' in general terms is the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. In its narrow sense, 'interest' is understood to mean the amount, which one has contracted to pay for use of borrowed money. In whatever category 'interest' in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration, paid either for the use of money, or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and, thus, it is a charge for the use or forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by the parties, or permitted by custom or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or for the delay in paying money after it has become payable. The interest was granted, for improper and illegal retention of the amount of claim, by the Opposite Parties, to which the complainant was entitled since long. Had the amount of claim been settled by the Opposite Parties, within a period of six months of the submission of claim, he would have invested the same, in some business or deposited the same in the bank, as a result whereof, he would have earned interest thereon. For the financial loss, which the complainant suffered, interest @ 9% p.a., on the IDV, awarded by the District Forum, could be said to be just, fair and reasonable. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
According to Section 14(d) of the Act, the Consumer Foras can grant compensation, to the complainant. The word 'compensation' is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined, in the Act. According to the dictionary, it means compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense, it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Consumer Foras have been vested with the Jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely enabling them (Consumer Foras), to determine compensation, for any loss or damage suffered by the consumers, which in law is otherwise, the wide meaning of 'compensation'. The provision, in our considered opinion, enables the consumers to claim and empowers the Consumer Foras to redress any injustice done to the complainant, by not-settling his claim and, thereafter, closing the same on flimsy grounds, as "Final Closure" vide letter dated 22.04.2014, Annexure C-5. The Commission or the District Forum in the Act, is, thus, entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services, but also to compensate the consumers, for injustice suffered by them. The submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, therefore, being devoid of merit must fail, and the same stands rejected.
The District Forum, however, granted interest @9% P.A., to the complainant, on the IDV, from the date of filing the claim, till realization. In our considered opinion, the order of the District Forum, to this extent, deserves to the modified. Once the claim was submitted by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, they were to investigate the same, by deputing Surveyor and Loss Assessor, which required some time, to undertake such an exercise. Only after properly getting investigated the claim that the Opposite Parties could come to the conclusion, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to any amount, and if so, to what extent. It was not that, merely on filing the claim, the same could be settled by the Opposite Parties. In our considered opinion, it would have taken at least 6 months for the Opposite Parties, to settle the claim, one way or the other. Under these circumstances, the complainant was only entitled to interest @9% P.A., after six months of filing the claim, on the IDV. The order of the District Forum deserves modification to this extent also.
Not only this, the District Forum also did not give a direction to the complainant, to transfer the registration certificate of the vehicle, in favour of the Opposite Parties, on payment of the amount awarded against them. Once the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to the IDV of the vehicle, he was not left with any right of ownership therein and it vested in the Opposite Parties. The District Forum was required to direct the complainant to transfer the registration certificate and other documents, in respect of the vehicle, in question, in favour of the Opposite Parties, so as to vest ownership thereof in them, if ultimately the vehicle was traced. To this extent, the order of the District needs modification.
No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, and the appellants/ Opposite Parties jointly and severally are directed as under:-
To make payment of Rs.7.70 lacs (IDV) alongwith interest @9% P.A., six months after the filing of the claim, on fulfilling the necessary formalities by the complainant, for which prior notice detailing the formalities to be complied with by him (complainant) shall be served upon him, through registered post.
The complainant shall transfer the registration certificate and other documents of the vehicle, in favour of the appellants/Opposite Parties, so as to vest ownership thereof in them, and hand over the same to them, at the time of making payment of the awarded amount.
To make payment of compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency, in rendering service, already awarded by the District Forum.
To make payment of Rs.10,000/-, as cost, already awarded by the District Forum.
The amounts aforesaid shall be paid and the directions be complied with by the complainant, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the amounts mentioned in Clauses (i) and (iii) above, shall carry interest @12% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs, already awarded by the District Forum.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
15.06.2015 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No. 127 of 2015) Argued by: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated the 15th day of June 2015 ORDER Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 22 days (as per the office report 20 days), in filing the same (appeal) has been moved, by the applicants/appellants, stating therein, that, on receipt of certified copy of the order impugned on 18.04.2015, necessary instructions were given to the Local Counsel at Chandigarh, to send the case file, alongwith his opinion, which was received by them (applicants/appellants), from him (Counsel concerned) in the first week of May 2015, and, as such, the same was forwarded to the Competent Authorities for taking approval, to file an appeal, against the same (order impugned). It was further stated that, thereafter, the case file was delivered to the Counsel concerned, on 18.05.2015, alongwith necessary documents, for the purpose of preparation of draft appeal. It was further stated that the Counsel concerned prepared the draft of appeal, which was sent to the Delhi office of the appellants/Opposite Parties, for vetting. It was further stated that final approval for filing the appeal was given by the Delhi office of the appellants/Opposite Parties, on 21.05.2015, whereafter, immediate steps were taken by the Counsel concerned and, as such, the instant appeal was filed. It was further stated that, it was in these circumstances, that delay of 22 days (as per the office report 20 days), in filing the appeal occurred. It was further stated that the delay, in filing the appeal, was neither intentional, nor willful. Accordingly, the prayer, referred to above, was made.
Notice of this application, was given to the respondent/complainant, to which no reply was filed, by him.
Arguments, on the application were heard No doubt, there is delay of 22 days (as per the office report 20 days), in filing the appeal. The question arises, as to whether, the delay was intentional, or on account of the reasons, beyond the control of the applicants/appellants. Before discussing this question, let us have a look at law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, regarding the condonation of delay. In Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. vs State Of A.P. and Ors., A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1199: (2011) 4 S.C.C. 190, the Apex Court held as under:-
(i). The Courts generally adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(ii). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.
(iii). 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.
(iv). Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law".
In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123, there was a delay of 883 days, in filing application, for setting aside exparte decree, for which application for condonation of delay was filed, the Apex Court held as under:-
"It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.
10. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause."
The Court further observed in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 which run thus:-
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (1969) 1 SCR 1006 and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366.
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. "
In Jyotsana Sharda vs Gaurav Sharda, (2010-3) 159 P.L.R. D15,Delhi High Court, while condoning 52 days delay, in filing the appeal, observed as under:-
"No doubt, originally the Apex Court in Ram Lal Vs. Rewa Coalfield AIR 1962 SC 351 had held that while seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each day's delay in filing the appeal. The later judgments of the Apex Court have considerably diluted this requirement of explaining each days delay by a party. The latest trend and the ratio cases which the Apex Court has laid down in the judgments is that the Court must adopt a liberal approach rather than pedantic approach while doing so. It must see the bonafides of the person who is preferring the appeal rather than seeing the quantum of delay which has been occasioned. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353".
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. The stand taken up by the applicants/appellants, in the application is that, on receipt of certified copy of the order impugned on 18.04.2015, necessary instructions were given to the Local Counsel at Chandigarh, to send the case file, alongwith his opinion, which was received by them (applicants/appellants), from him (Counsel concerned) in the first week of May 2015, and, as such, the same was forwarded to the Competent Authorities for taking approval, to file an appeal, against the same (order impugned). Thereafter, the case file was delivered to the Counsel concerned, on 18.05.2015, alongwith necessary documents, for the purpose of preparation of draft appeal. The Counsel concerned prepared the draft of appeal, which was sent to the Delhi office of the appellants/Opposite Parties, for vetting, which was finally approved by the Competent Authorities, on 21.05.2015, and, as such, the instant appeal was filed. It is evident, from the record that delay, in this case, occurred due to the cumbersome procedure, which was required to be followed, by the Officers/Officials of the appellants/Opposite Parties, to obtain final approval for filing the appeal. It may be stated here, that for taking decision by an Organization, like the one in the instant case, as to whether, an appeal against the order was to be filed or not, the file had to pass through many channels. No single person, could take decision, at his own level independently, for filing an appeal. Even otherwise, the delay in filing the appeal is not so huge, as to deny the substantial justice. It is settled principle of law, that normally every lis, should be decided, on merits. When the substantial justice and the procedural wrangles are pitted against each other, then the former shall prevail over the latter. The main object of the Consumer Fora, is to dispense substantial justice, and not to throttle the same, by making it a sacrificial goat, at the altar of hyper-technicalities. Some lapse, on the part of the Counsel or the litigants alone is not enough to turn down their plea and shut the door against them. The explanation, furnished for delay in filing the appeal, does not smack of malafidies. When the explanation furnished for delay is bonafide, the Consumer Fora is required to adopt liberal approach, to condone the same, so as to ensure that the lis is decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities. There is, thus, sufficient cause, for condoning the delay. The application thus, deserves to be accepted.
For the reasons recorded above, the application for condonation of delay of 22 days, (as per the office report 20 days) in filing the appeal, is allowed, and the delay is, accordingly, condoned.
Admitted.
It be registered.
Arguments, in the main appeal already heard.
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with the modification.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg