State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sodhi Ram on 26 September, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.720 of 2010
In/and
First Appeal No.481 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 25.03.2010.
Date of Decision: 26.09.2011.
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Eureka Towers,
Mind Space Complex, Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai 400064-India
through its Chairman.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered office, Rommon
House, H.T. Parekhi Marg, 169 Backing Reclamation, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400 020 India, through its Manager (Claims).
3. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Shoppe Square Ist Floor,
Lajpat Nagar Market, Jalandhar through its Manager.
....Applicants/Appellants.
Versus
Sodhi Ram S/o Late Sh. Pritam Chand, R/o C/o Milan Palace, G.T. Road,
Goraya-144 409, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
...Respondent.
Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay
of 98 days
In/And
First Appeal No.481 of 2010 against the
order dated 23.09.2009 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Kapurthala, Camp at Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the applicants/appellants: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Applicants/appellants- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd and others (In short, "the applicants") have filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Misc. Appl. No.720 of 2010 2
In/and First Appeal No.481 of 2010
2. It was submitted that the impugned order was passed on 23.09.2009 and the copy was prepared on 06.10.2009 and the same was sent to Mumbai and should have been received in a weeks time and the appeal could be filed by 15.11.2009.
3. The decision for filing the appeal is taken by head office. The file was summoned from Jalandhar and sent to the counsel at Chandigarh for his opinion, who gave opinion on 18.12.2009 and again the file was sent to Regional Office, New Delhi and then to Head Office, Mumbai. The decision was taken for filing the appeal and the demand draft was prepared and sent on 07.01.2010 as statutory deposit and the same was received by the counsel on 13.01.2010. The documents pertaining to the file and the certified copy were misplaced in the office of the counsel for the applicants and efforts to trace out the same were made, but the same were not traceable and the counsel had to call for fresh documents from the court at Jalandhar. The request was made on 28.01.2010 after all the efforts to trace out the file failed.
4. A fresh set was obtained by the local counsel Sh. Amardeep Gandhi and sent to the counsel, which was received on 15.03.2010. The certified copy is still not available and fresh copy has been applied. The appeal has been filed on the basis of photo copy and some time was taken in processing of the file and a delay of 98 days occurred in filing the present appeal. The delay is bonafide and occurred due to the above reasons and prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, preliminary objections were taken that the appeal is barred by time and the application for condonation of delay has been filed for condoning 98 days' delay without stating the specific, cogent and convincing reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The provisions of Rule 8.4 of the Consumer Protection Punjab Rules, 1987 were not followed. Provisions of CPC are not applicable. The application is not bonafide, rather it speaks of negligence, Misc. Appl. No.720 of 2010 3 In/and First Appeal No.481 of 2010 carelessness for not filing the appeal. The appeal has been filed without any authorization letter and no appeal can be filed without any resolution or authorization letter, as the applicant is a limited company and the appeal and the application are liable to be rejected.
6. On merits, the allegations were denied and inter-alia it was further pleaded that the copy of the order dated 06.10.2009 was posted to applicants no.2 & 3 simultaneously by the District Forum, Kapurthala, Camp Court at Jalandhar. The applicants have not mentioned the date of the receipt of the copy, purposely to mislead this Commission. No dates have been mentioned and vague and routine averments have been made. The story of misplacing of the file is an after-thought and cannot be believed. The appeal could not be filed without the certified copy. No latitude or relief can be given to the applicants for causing the delay due to laxity, negligence and carelessness. The functionaries of the applicants are expected to function in a responsible, efficient and efficacious manner and a valuable right has accrued to the respondent, and prayed that the application for condonation of delay be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued on the basis of the pleas taken in the application and has stated that due to the sending of file to various offices of the applicants, the delay occurred. The head office of the applicants is at Mumbai and the final decision for filing the appeal has to be taken by the Head Office, Mumbai as well as the legal head. The file was misplaced and the documents were again collected and due to procedural delays, the delay of 98 days has occurred in filing the present appeal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the application is vague and it does not disclose sufficient cause or any explanation for condoning the delay. No dates have been Misc. Appl. No.720 of 2010 4 In/and First Appeal No.481 of 2010 mentioned as to when the file was lost and when the documents were collected and when it was sent to head office and when it was received and where the matter was delayed? No affidavit of the counsel, who collected the documents again, is on file and a valuable right has accrued to the respondent and the application deserves dismissal.
10. We have considered the respective submissions made by the both the counsel for the parties and have examined the file.
11. The application has been filed by the applicants in a routine manner, thinking that whatever may be the reason for delay, the same will be condoned. The reason given in the application mainly is the loss of file, but again the same is vague because no date is mentioned as to when the file was lost and for how long, the same was not traced? Even if the same was mixed up with other files, as pleaded, the same could be traced by making some genuine efforts. In present days when the communication is so fast, then waiting for months for opinion or the file cannot be believed. The fact remains that the applicants have adopted a most casual and careless attitude and have taken the things for granted, but the same cannot be appreciated in any manner. The law on the question of condonation of delay is very vivid and clear now and it is settled that if there is a bonafide delay in filing the appeal and the reasons and the explanations given satisfies the Court/Commission that the delay has occurred because of the reasons beyond the control of the applicants and there was no intentional delay, then the same can be condoned, but for the laxity, carelessness and casual attitude in filing the appeal, without explaining the delay does not in any way warrant the condonation of delay.
12. 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:-
Misc. Appl. No.720 of 2010 5
In/and First Appeal No.481 of 2010 "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".
13. Hon'ble National Commission in case "Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs DAC Research and Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd.", 2009(1) Consumer Law Today-532, observed that law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence for relaxation of time limit for a Government department and observed in Para-5 (relevant portion) as follows:-
"Law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence in time limit for relaxation of time limits for a Government Department, especially, when a right has been created in favour of one of the parties".
14. 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".
15. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "HUDA Vs Supreme System", II (2011) CPJ-70(NC), observed as follows:- Misc. Appl. No.720 of 2010 6
In/and First Appeal No.481 of 2010 "In the present case, the inordinate delay of 107 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The only reason given in the application is that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to administrative reasons. Petitioner has not shown any cause much less a sufficient cause for condoning the delay".
16. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be explained and the excuse of procedural delays cannot be taken into consideration if the delay has not been properly explained. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 98 days.
17. In view of the above discussion, the application filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 98 days in filing the present appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed.
Main Case
18. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
19. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 25.03.2010 and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt dated 21.01.2011 in compliance of the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by this Commission. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the legal heirs of Lakhwinder Singh (deceased) son of the respondent/ complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the applicants.
20. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the applicants/appellants to the legal heirs of Lakhwinder Singh (deceased) son of the respondent/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
Misc. Appl. No.720 of 2010 7
In/and First Appeal No.481 of 2010
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.09.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member September 26, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)