State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pnb Metlife India Insurance Company ... vs Sawinder Singh on 10 September, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.835 of 2015
In/and
First Appeal No.454 of 2015
Date of institution : 28.04.2015
Date of decision : 10.09.2015
1. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, The
Mall Complex, above ICICI Bank, Sutehri Road, Hoshiarpur,
through its Registered Office.
2. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd. Brigade
Seshamahal, 5 Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-
560004.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Sawinder Singh S/o Darshan Singh, R/o Kothi No.46, Guru Nanak
Nagar, near Dana Mandi, Village Rasoolpur, P.O. Jaja, District
Hoshiarpur.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
21.07.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Shri U.K. Kanwar, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Suresh Kumar, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :M.A. No.835 of 2015
This application has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 15 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, Misc. Application No.835 of 2015 2 In/and First Appeal No.454 of 2015 "the Act"), for the condonation of 242 days' delay in filing the appeal, which is directed against the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Sawinder Singh, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Act, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund the sum of Rs.31,500/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 30.11.2012 till realization of that amount and to pay Rs.5,000/-, as litigation costs. It has been averred in the application that the appellants failed to receive the copy of the final order from the local Advocate within time and they remained under the impression that the order had been reserved and as soon as the copy of the order would be made available, the local Advocate shall send the same to their counsel at Delhi. To their utter shock, they received a show-cause notice in the month of February and then they came to know about the impugned order. They immediately requested the local Advocate to procure the certified copy of the order and justify the cause for not sending the order copy. A copy of the order was annexed with the show-cause notice, which was so received by them and thereafter, they directed their counsel at Delhi to draft the appeal and the said draft was further sent to Bangalore Corporate Office for the purposes of signing the same and the giving of the affidavit. The services of private courier companies were availed of for sending the documents, which consumed a lot of time and Misc. Application No.835 of 2015 3 In/and First Appeal No.454 of 2015 that resulted in the late filing of the appeal. That delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.
2. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
3. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the contentions, as made in the application. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the certified copy of the order was delivered to opposite party No.1 itself on 30.07.2014 and the other certified copy of the order was sent to opposite party No.2 itself on the same day through registered post and the same must have been received by it in due course of postal business. That falsifies the averments made in the application and, as such, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned.
4. Affidavit of one Anil P.M. was filed in support of the application. The deponent did not depose about the facts, as stated in the application, in that affidavit. He only mentioned therein that he had read and understood the contents of the application and that the same are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. On the basis of such like affidavit, it cannot be said that the averments made in the application stand substantiated. It cannot be said that there is any truth in the averments made in the application, in view of the endorsements made by the District Forum on the original order itself. As per the endorsement made on the original order, the certified copy thereof was delivered to opposite party No.1 on 30.07.2014 itself, Misc. Application No.835 of 2015 4 In/and First Appeal No.454 of 2015 whereas the same was sent to opposite party No.2 through post on 30.07.2014. That copy must have been received by that opposite party in due course of postal business. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the local Advocate had failed to send the copy of the order to the appellants. The same was duly received by the opposite parties in time. They have not mentioned the different dates, on which the draft of the appeal was sent to Delhi or Bangalore and the date, on which the same was received back; whereas the law requires that when the condonation of delay is sought for on such like grounds, those dates must be disclosed in order to satisfy the Fora, as to whether the cause so disclosed is sufficient or not?
5. In these circumstances, we conclude that the appellants have not been able to prove any sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Main Appeal
6. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal stands dismissed, as barred by time.
7. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
Misc. Application No.835 of 2015 5
In/and First Appeal No.454 of 2015
8. The application/appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) September 10, 2015 MEMBER (Gurmeet S)