National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chandan Singh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 October, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 3318 of 2013 (From the order dated 23.01.2013 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in Appeal no. 413 of 2009) Chandan Singh Son of Shri Birkha Ram Resident of Village Qazipur Tehsil and District Jhajjar Petitioner Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, SCO Nos. 337-340 Sector 35 B, Chandigarh Respondents Through its Authorised Signatory Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. 1st Floor, Narain Complex Civil Road, Rohtak BEFORE: HONBLE MR JUSTICE V B GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS REKHA GUPTA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr S P Jha, Advocate with Mr Vikrant Bhardwaj, Advocate Pronounced on 10th October 2013 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA Revision petition no. 3718 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 413 of 2009.
The brief facts of the present case as conveyed from the record that truck bearing registration no. HR 46 C 9534 of the complainant/ petitioner was insured with the respondent / opposite party no. 1/ insurance company with effect from 24.05.2005 to 23.05.2006. On 14.12.2005 when the truck was on its way from Yamuna Nagar to Rajkot and reached near Mehla on NH No. 8, the front tyre of the truck burst due to which truck caught fire and burnt. Rapat no. 569 dated 14.12.2005 was lodged with the concerned police. Upon intimation, the insurance company appointed a surveyor/ loss assessor of the company namely Shri K S Hans, who inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage/ loss of the vehicle in the following manner:
On Repair Basis Rs.13,41,637/-
On Total Loss Basis Rs. 7,98500/-
On net of salvage basis Rs. 6,23,500/-
In view of the above assessments, the surveyor recommended the loss on net salvage basis subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the claim submitted by the petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, the petitioner did not disclose that the petitioner had obtained the claim during the subsistence of the previous policy on his insured truck and thus by fraudulent means the complainant/ petitioner illegally got 20% discount as No Claim Bonus qua the premium of the policy. Forced by these circumstances, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing a complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statements. The Insurance Company in their separate written statement justified the repudiation of petitioners claim on the ground stated in the preceding paragraph of this order and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Respondent no. 2/ Opposite party no. 2 Magma Shrachi Finance Limited in their separate written statement stated that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.9,55,261/- from it and the petitioner always remained irregular in making the repayment of the loan amount. The last instalment was to be paid on or before 01.04.2007 and the total receivable amount was Rs.10,70,762/-. The execution of agreement and payment of subsequent instalments all had happened beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and therefore, the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (the District Forum) accepted the complaint and granted the following reliefs:
.........we, therefore, direct the respondent no. 1 to pay the insured amount i.e., Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 at once and respondent no. 2 is then directed to deduct their amount outstanding against the complainant and make the payment of balance amount to the complainant without any delay. Respondent no. 1 is further directed to calculate the interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of filing of complaint i.e., 26.11.2007 till realisation of final payment and pay it to the complainant on account of deficiency in service caused to him. The order be complied within one month. Accordingly, the present complaint stands disposed of.
The State Commission in their order dated 23.01.2013 came to the conclusion that the facts of the instant case are fully attracted to the authoritative pronouncements of Honble Apex Court and the National Commission cited (supra). From the evidence produced by the appellant opposite parties it is well established on the record that the complainant/ petitioner had submitted a false declaration Ex R 9 and took benefit of 20% rebate as No Claim Bonus by fraudulent means. District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated cogent and convincing evidence and erred in allowing the complaint. Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Along with the present revision petition an application for condonation of delay of 90 days has been filed. However, as per the office report, there is a delay of 139 days. Counsel for the petitioner could not give the date from which date 90 days had been calculated.
The reasons given for the delay are as under:
On 31.01.2013, the certified copy of impugned order was dispatched from the office of State Commission however, this was served upon the petitioner on the 3rd week of February 2013.
In between March to August 2013, the petitioner was confined to bed on account of various ailments, including the advance age of the petitioner coupled with the shocking information of dismissal of his complaint when the petitioner is at the double loss, one that he has lost his vehicle and second the compensation awarded by the District Forum was set aside by the State Commission.
In the month of September 2013, petitioner ultimately collected the case file including the entire documents from his advocate at Chandigarh and started arranging the requisite fund for preparing the present petition before this Commission. Thus, in that process a delay of 90 days have been caused in filing the present petition before this Commission.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case carefully.
The petitioner has failed to give date on which the impugned order dated 23.01.2013 was received. Though it is admitted by the petitioner that it was despatched on 31.01.2013, but he could not give any evidence to support the fact that it was received by him in the 3rd week of February 2013.
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is in an advanced age and is 77 years of old. This was a blatant contradiction of the fact that in his affidavit the petitioner has given his age as 65 years. The petitioner has also failed to mention the various ailments that he has been suffering from and the plea of bad health and having been confined to bed is not supported by any medical certificate. In fact in his application for condonation of delay without any explanation he has jumped from 3rd week of February when he received the impugned order of 23.01.2013 to September 2013 when he ultimately collected the case file including the entire documents from the Advocate at Chandigarh.
Revision petition was thereafter filed on 17.09.2013. The petitioner has failed to give day-to-day explanation for the delay of 139 days. The petitioner has also failed to provide sufficient cause to condone the delay of 139 days. This view is further supported by the following authorities:
The apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that:
It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an 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.
In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held:
The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005].
In Ram Lal and Ors.
Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;
It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.
Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;
There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.
Accordingly, we find that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.
List on 22nd November, 2013 for compliance.
Sd/-
..
[ V B Gupta, J.] Sd/-
..
[Rekha Gupta] Satish