State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Manjit Singh on 26 April, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011
In/and
First Appeal No.1741 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 01.12.2011
Date of Decision: 26.04.2012.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10,
Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory Ms
Gurprit, Manager Legal.
.....Applicant/Appellant.
Versus
1. Manjit Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, Village Bimbar, PO Majhi, Tehsil and
District Sangrur.
2. Indico Hightech Rural Development of Women Welfare Society
through its Chairman K.C. Bansal, # 82, Kaula Park, Sangrur, now at
Toor Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana.
...Respondents.
Misc. Application U/s 151 for
condonation of delay of 3 months and 20
days in filing the appeal
In Re:
First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 against the
order dated 22.06.2011 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, counsel for the applicant/appellant.
Ms Neha Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.1. Sh. Manvinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.2
-------------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of two misc. applications i.e. Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 in/and F.A. No.1741 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Manjit Singh & Anr.) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and Misc. Appl. No.399 of 2012 in/and F.A. No.1741 Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 2 In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 of 2011 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Manjit Singh & Anr.) for dismissal of the appeal being beyond the period of limitation and that too without being accompanied by the application for condonation of delay. The facts are taken from Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this application.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, applicant/appellant (In short "the applicant") has filed this application for condonation of delay of 3 months and 20 days in filing the appeal.
3. It was submitted by the applicant that the appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Forum, Sangrur and vide this single order, the following 22 complaints were decided:
Sr. No. Complaint No. & Date Name of parties 1 768 dated 03.11.2010 Manjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 2 765 dated 03.11.2010 Piara Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 3 766 dated 03.11.2010 Jeet Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 4 767 dated 03.11.2010 Karamjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 5 778 dated 09.11.2010 Jagtar Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 6 779 dated 09.11.2010 Chamkaur Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 7 780 dated 09.11.2010 Pritam Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 8 781 dated 09.11.2010 Balwinder Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 9 782 dated 09.11.2010 Tek Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 10 801 dated 23.11.2010 Paramjit Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 11 802 dated 23.11.2010 Gursewak Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 12 803 dated 23.11.2010 Mohan Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 13 804 dated 23.11.2010 Jaspal Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 14 827 dated 06.12.2010 Harjeet Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 15 828 dated 06.12.2010 Mandeep Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 16 843 dated 09.12.2010 Makhan Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 17 844 dated 09.12.2010 Harwinder Singh Vs ICICI Lombard Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 3 In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 18 845 dated 09.12.2010 Gurpreet Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 19 862 dated 20.12.2010 Mukand Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 20 863 dated 20.12.2010 Gurvinder Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 21 868 dated 20.12.2010 Kulwant Singh Vs ICICI Lombard 22 869 dated 20.12.2010 Paramjit Kaur Vs ICICI Lombard
4. The certified copies as provided to the applicant were issued only in complaint no.768 and the other connected parties were not issued any certified copy thereof. The said objection was raised when the cases were filed in the registry of this Commission. Even the memo of parties of the other complaints were not mentioned anywhere in the said order. On account of above objection, the registry of the District Forum, Sangrur was requested to issue fresh copies of the final order in all the 22 complaints decided by the District Forum, because certified copies in other complaints were not supplied to the applicant which was necessary for filing the appeal. The registry refused to issue any further copies, though 22 copies as provided to the applicant contained the record as showing having been issued in the first complaint only. As such, the applicant was forced to move an application before the Forum for the issuance of directions to the registry to issue correct certified copies thereof and the District Forum passed the order dated 14.11.2011 and directed the office for providing of the separate orders passed in each of the cases of the applicant. Based on the said order, certified copies were provided mentioning the correct complaint numbers.
5. The first free certified copies of the order were issued on 18.11.2011 and the appeal was filed on the basis of the same. Though there is no delay in filing the appeal, but on account of the objections raised by the registry, the present application has been filed and the delay, if any, has occurred on account of above reason. Moreover, the delay, if any, has occurred is in the present appeal and not in other 21 cases. Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 4
In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011
6. The delay is bonafide and no benefit was to arise by filing the appeal with delay. There is delay of 3 months and 20 days from the date of issue of the first copy, but there is no delay from the date of issue of the order dated 14.11.2011. It was prayed that the delay, if any, may be condoned in the interest of justice.
7. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it was admitted that the 22 complaints mentioned above were decided by the District Forum on 22.06.2011. It was pleaded that the certified copy was issued to the applicant in complaint no.768 against which the present appeal has been filed. 21 separate certified copies were issued to the applicant on 08.07.2011. It was denied that the registry of this Commission raised any objection at the filing of the appeals. It was also denied that the registry of the District Forum refused to issue any further copies. It was admitted that the applicant filed an application before the District Forum. It was further pleaded that all the 22 complaints were decided by the District Forum, Sangrur vide one consolidated order and there was no need to issue separate copies of the order. The applicant received the copies on 08.07.2011 and the appeal has been filed with delay of 5 months. It was denied that first free certified copies of the orders were issued on 18.11.2011, rather the free copies were issued on 08.07.2011. The applicant is trying to mislead the Commission by mentioning wrong facts and prayed that the application may be dismissed.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the application and have heard the counsel for the parties.
9. The impugned order was passed by the District Forum on 22.06.2011 and the certified copies of the orders in all the complaint cases were received by the counsel for the parties on 08.07.2011, as per the report of the District Forum sent vide no.176 dated 22.03.2012. The learned District Forum in Para-2 of its report, mentioned as follows:-
"As per entries at serial number 329 to 350 in the judgment issue register, copies of the judgments in the above noted complaint cases Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 5 In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 were prepared on 5.7.2011 and received by the learned counsel for the parties including the respondents on 8.7.2011".
10. The appeal was required to be filed upto 07.08.2011 i.e. within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order, whereas the present appeal was filed on 01.12.2011 i.e. after the delay of about four months. The only reason given by the applicant/appellant for the condonation of delay is that the copies of short orders passed in the complaint cases were not supplied and later on, the fresh application was moved on 14.11.2011 for providing the copies of the short orders passed in the connected cases. Although as per the report of the District Forum, copies in all the complaint cases were supplied to the counsel for the parties on 08.07.2011. Yet presuming the contention of the applicant to be correct, although it is not as per the factual position of the record, then also from 08.07.2011 till 14.11.2011, no appeal or application for obtaining the copies of the short orders was filed and this delay of 130 days remained unexplained. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. "Swaran Singh Vs Lath Singh & Anr.", Air 1989 (P & H)-306;
"T. Satyanarayana Vs Labour Courts, Guntur & Anr.", 1988 ILLJ-133 (AP); "Haryana Power General Copn Ltd. Vs Sudesh Mitter & Ors.", RSA No.4106 of 2004 decided on March 15, 2012 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, are not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in this case all the copies including the short orders were supplied, but for the reasons best known to the applicant, the applicant after the delay of 130 days again sought the re-issuance of the certified copies of short orders in other complaints. This explanation furnished by the applicant is not sufficient to condone the delay of 147 days.
11. 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.3077 of 2011 6
In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 "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".
12. In another case "Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. Vs State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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".
13. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sudhakar Suresh Kadam & Anr.", I (2011) CPJ-152(NC), in Para-1(relevant portion) observed as follows:-
"Be that as it may, the reasonings assigned for condonation of delay are the procedural delays that usually occur with governmental organizations for no one seriously pursuing the matter. The reasonings assigned can hardly be said to be reasonable, satisfactory or even proper excuse for delay. Law of limitation has to be applied with all its vigour provided by the Statute and no Court/adjudicating authority can extend the period of limitation, on equitable grounds. That apart, the expression "sufficient cause" Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 7
In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 cannot be construed liberally. The revision petition in this backdrop, for inordinate belated filing of revision petition, merits dismissal on this score alone".
14. In another case reported as "Union of India Vs Vijay Laxmi", 2006(1)CLT-305(NC), Hon'ble National Commission held that datewise moments of the file from one table to another table and the time spent has to be shown.
15. In recent judgment the Hon'ble National Commission in case "HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs Amardeep Tharuman Chhabriya & Ors." Revision Petition No.2621 of 2011 decided on 14th October, 2011, relying upon the authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court, refused to condone the delay. In that case, the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Oriental Arora Chemical Industries Limited Vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation", (2010) 5 SCC-459 was relied upon and the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were reproduced:-
"We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not 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".
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment reported as "Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", 2012(1) CLT-418(SC), in Para-3(relevant portion), observed as follows:-
"She instructed her counsel to prepare a draft of the case to be filed in this Court, but did not take steps necessary for filing the petition. She visited India in April, 2011, but then too she did not bother to contact Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 8 In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011 the counsel. The petitioner's assertion that she could not do so because she was suffering from viral fever has not been substantiated by any document. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground much less justification for exercise of power of this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act".
Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in Para-4 as follows:-
"4. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding any 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".
17. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be properly explained and in case the delay is properly explained and sufficient cause is shown for such delay, the same can be condoned. In the present case, as discussed above in detail, no explanation is coming forward for not filing the appeal from 08.07.2011 to 30.11.2011 and for 115 days (three months and 25 days), applicant remained silent. Once the limitation starts running, it does not come to an end on filing subsequent applications. The application was moved on 14.11.2011 before the District Forum for providing the copies of the short orders and there is no explanation as to why this was not done after 08.07.2011 when the copies were supplied. Period of 30 days initially given was uptill 07.08.2011 and thereafter the delay from 07.08.2011 till 30.11.2011 is not, at all, explained, rather it reflects the casual and non-bothering attitude of the applicant, thinking that the delay will be condoned as a matter of right, but it is not so when it is tested on the judicial anvil and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission cannot be ignored. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 115 days.
Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011 9
In/and First Appeal No.1741 of 2011
18. In view of the above discussion, the application filed by the applicant for condonation of delay of 115 (three months and 25 days) days in filing the present appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. Main Case
19. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
20. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.17,473/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/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 appellant.
21. Remaining amount, as per order of the District Forum, shall be paid by the applicant to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.
Misc. Appl. No.399 of 2012(dismissal of appeal):-
22. In Misc. Application No.399 of 2012, the respondent no.1 sought dismissal of the appeal on the grounds as mentioned in his reply given to Misc. Appl. No.3077 of 2011.
23. In view of the reasons and discussions held in Misc. Application no.3077 of 2011(condonation of delay), the Misc. Application no.399 of 2012 for dismissal of the appeal, is accepted and the appeal, being not filed within the limitation period, is dismissed.
24. The arguments in both these applications were heard on 19.04.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member April 26, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)