State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Idbi Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... vs Sh. Dalbara Singh on 9 September, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.
263 of 2014
Date
of Institution
15.07.2014
Date
of Decision
09.09.2014
IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor,
Tradeview Oasis Complex, Kamala City, P. B. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai
400013.
IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO
No.101-103, 2nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 170017.
..Appellants/Opposite
Parties No.1 & 2.
Versus
Sh. Dalbara Singh S/o Sh. Banarasi Das, R/o Village
Rurka, V.P.O. Dharma Garh, SAS. Nagar.
...Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
SH.
DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS.
PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.
Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.
Gurmohan Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 (now appellants) as under:-
10. On the same principle, we also allow this complaint and direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,15,000/- - Rs.6,000/- = Rs.2,09,000/- to the Complainant, as per Regulation 7 mentioned above. Opposite Parties will also pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.
11. This order be complied with by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which due amount will carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment, besides the costs of litigation.
2. The facts, in brief, are that in the month of December 2011, Miss Mandeep Kaur (Opposite Party No.3), who introduced herself as Advisor of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 approached the complainant and convinced him, to make investment in the shape of fixed deposit. It was stated that in pursuance to the said proposal and totally relying on the words of Opposite Party No.3, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque, as one time premium amount for Policy No.4000370962 and Rs.1,00,000/- for Policy No.4000373637 vide Payment Receipts (Annexure C-1 & C-2 respectively). It was further stated that subsequently, in the month of January, 2012, said Ms. Mandeep Kaur once again contacted the complainant asking him to deposit the amount in another fixed deposit Policy, as good interest was guaranteed. It was further stated that, on the assurance of Ms. Mandeep Kaur, the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- through cheque dated 21.1.2012 in Policy No.4000379319 named IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan vide Payment Receipt (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that when the complainant had enquired from said Ms. Mandeep Kaur about the name and terms of the fixed deposit Policy, she had told him that the Policy was named IDBI Federal Wealthsurance Dreambuilder Insurance Plan and this was a guaranteed plan and the money was safe.
3. It was further stated that in the month of March, 2013, the complainant received letter from the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Limited asking for renewal premium of Rs.1,00,000/- as the grace period of the Policy had already ended (Annexure C-9). It was further stated that the complainant immediately called up Ms. Mandeep Kaur (Opposite Party No.3) to enquire about this letter, but could not get in touch with her. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the Opposite Parties a number of times, with his grievance as he had been given to understand that the amount paid for the Policy was one time only. It was further stated that the complainant was surprised to know that he had to pay 04 more installments, for the Policies, with premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each and 15 more installments for Policy with premium of Rs.15,000/- and, in case, the amount was not paid, the amounts in the Policy would be forfeited. It was further stated that the complainant tried to contact the officials of Opposite Party No.2, with his request but he was always told that no details of his policies were available. It was further stated that the complainant was also told that he had never made any investment in the Insurance Policies, detailed by him.
4. It was further stated that when the complainant threatened the Opposite Parties, that he would report the matter to the Police Authorities, he was given an assurance by them (Opposite Parties) that his problem would be solved and the amount would be refunded, but no amount was received by the complainant. It was further stated that due to misrepresentation and false inducement by Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advisor of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, he invested an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- in three separate Policies, and despite visiting the office of the Opposite Parties, a number of times, his grievance was not redressed. It was further stated that even the signatures of the complainant on the application attached did not belong to him. It was further stated that even the proposal form had not been filled up by him and the other entries in the proposal form were also questioned by the complainant.
5. 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, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.2,15,000/- paid as premium for three Policies; pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony; and Rs.33,000/- as cost of litigation besides any other relief, which the District Forum deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint reply, took up a preliminary objection that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum. On merits, it was stated that they approached the complainant to make some investment with the Company and he was explained all the terms and conditions as well as the benefits of the Insurance Policies. It was specifically denied that they ever approached the complainant to make investment in the fixed deposit scheme, as alleged. It was also denied that the complainant was told that it was a one-time payment plan. It was stated that the complainant, out of his own free will, invested in the Insurance Policies and paid the premiums. It was further stated that the complainant submitted duly signed proposal form vide which he agreed to follow all the terms and conditions incorporated in the Policy. It was further stated that the terms and conditions of the Policy are in strict adherence to norms set by IRDA and were duly communicated to the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took all necessary steps to keep the complainant adequately informed about his Policy terms and obligations. It was further stated that the complainant opted for the Policies of his own choice and all Policies were issued as per proposal forms. It was further stated that the Policy documents containing the terms & conditions as well as benefits, as agreed upon between the parties, were given to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant, at no time, contacted Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with his allegations that he had not signed the proposal form or that the Policies issued to him were not as applied for. Opposite Parties denied the cancellation of the Policy on the request of the complainant in due adherence to the IRDA Regulations as the complainant did not avail of the free look period. While giving details of the three Policies, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 stated that the complainant was duly informed about the payment of next installment of premium and the fact that the Policy would lapse in case of non-payment, within the grace period. It was further stated that the complainant invested, in the Policies, after fully understanding the terms and conditions. It was specifically denied that there was any inducement or misrepresentation, by the Opposite Parties, at the time of issuance of the Polices. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were neither deficient, in rendering service nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied
7. During the course of proceedings on 21.10.2013, on the statement of the Counsel for the complainant that he did not press the complaint against Opposite Party No.3, the name of Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties.
8. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
9. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated, in the opening para of the instant order.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
11. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
12. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, submitted that the respondent/complainant purchased three Insurance Policies, out of which, two Policies were IDBI Federal Wealthsurance Dreambuilder Insurance Plan i.e. unit linked and the third Policy was IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan i.e. non unit linked. It was further submitted that the Unit Linked Policies bearing No.4000370962 and 4000373637 were purchased by the respondent/complainant on 30.12.2011 and the same were issued to him on 04.01.2012 and 18.01.2012 respectively. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant deposited Rs.1 Lac each as single annual premium in both the Unit Linked Policies and, thereafter, did not make any further payment. Regarding Policy No.4000379319 with IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan, it was submitted that the same was issued on 06.02.2012, for which, the respondent/complainant paid only one annual premium of Rs.14,772/-. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant did not apply for cancellation during the free-look period. It was also submitted that the Unit Linked Insurance Policies could acquire surrender value in terms of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2010, as notified vide Notification dated 1.7.2010, after lock-in period of 5 years and, as such, no cause of action accrued to the respondent/complainant to file the instant complaint. It was further submitted that the complaint qua these two Unit Linked Insurance Policies, being premature, was not maintainable before the District Forum. It was further submitted that as the respondent/complainant did not pay further premiums after payment of the first premium, the Policies were in lapsed stage. Regarding Policy No.4000379319 with IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan, it was submitted that since the respondent/complainant paid only one premium, therefore, he was not entitled to any surrender value.
13. The Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the Advisor of the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 misrepresented to the respondent/complainant that the investment was in the plan named "IDBI Federal Wealthsurance Dreambuilder Insurance Plan", which was a guaranteed plan and no other amount was to be paid in future as the same was a fixed deposit plan. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant, being a matriculate person, could not understand the intricacies involved and fell prey to the misrepresentation and false inducements of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advisor of the Company. It was further submitted that the said Advisor of the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, had committed fraud on the respondent/complainant. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum was just and correct and the same deserves to be maintained.
14. The factum of purchase of three Policies, the details whereof are tabulated hereunder, by the respondent/complainant is not in dispute:-
Sr. No Policy No. Date of Purchase Date of issue/ commencement Term of Policy Premium Payment Term Annual Premium (Rs.) Premium paid (Rs.) Receipt/ Annexure
1.
4000370962 30.12.2011 04.01.2012 10 years 5 years 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 C-1
2. 4000373637 30.12.2011 18.01.2012 10 years 5 years 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 C-2
3. 4000379319 21.01.2012 06.02.2012 25 years 15 years 14,772.00 14,772.00 + 221. 58 ST + 6.65 as Education Cess C-3 It is also evident that the respondent/complainant did not apply for cancellation of the policies, in question, during the free-look period.
15. The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the two United Linked Insurance Policies bearing Nos.4000370962 and 4000373637, after payment of only one premium of Rs.1 Lac each, have acquired surrender value.
16. Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of IDBI Federal Wealthsurance Dreambuilder Insurance Plan, at Pages 87-91 of the District Forum file, being relevant is extracted hereunder:-
13.
Surrender.
Your policy will have a lock-in period of five years from the date of inception. Any top-up premiums will also have a lock in of 5 years from the date of top-up. Surrender is possible only after completion of the lock in period. After completion of the 5 years lock in period you may surrender your policy at any time there is no surrender charge and we will pay you the entire fund value as on date of surrender.
As per Clause 13 relating to Surrender, extracted above, the lock-in period of 5 years is prescribed and these two Unit Linked Insurance Policies could acquire surrender value, only after lock-in period of 5 years.
17. Regulation 2(1)(viii) and explanation appended to Regulation 6(2) of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as Regulations 2010), as notified vide Notification dated 1.7.2010 being relevant, are extracted below:-
2(1)(viii). Lock-in-period means the period of five consecutive years from the date of commencement of the policy, during which period the proceeds of the discontinued policies cannot be paid by the insurer to the policyholder or to the insured, as the case may be, except in the case of death or upon the happening of any other contingency covered under the policy.
6.(2)Explanation:
(i) Proceeds of the discontinued policies means The fund value as on the date the policy has discontinued, after addition of interest computed at the minimum interest rate of 3.50% p.a.
18. From the bare reading of the afore-extracted Regulations, it is clear that the proceeds of the discontinued Policies cannot be paid by the Insurer before the expiry of lock-in-period of five consecutive years from the date of commencement of the Policy. In the present case, the Policies, in question, commenced on 04.01.2012 and 18.01.2012 and, as such, the lock-in-periods of five consecutive years are to expire on 04.01.2017 and 18.01.2017 respectively. Clearly, the respondent/complainant could not be paid the proceeds of these Policies, in question, which were discontinued, before January 2017, as per the purport of the Regulations extracted above. It is only after the expiry of the lock-in-period of five years that the complainant shall be entitled to the fund value as on the date the Policies were discontinued, after addition of interest computed at the minimum interest rate of 3.50% p.a. Thus, at this stage, the respondent/complainant is not entitled to the surrender value of these Policies, as has been erroneously allowed by the District Forum. The District Forum gravely erred in placing reliance upon Regulation 7 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Treatment of Discontinued Linked Insurance Policies) Regulations 2010 in isolation. In fact, no cause of action has arisen to the respondent/complainant, at this stage, and the same could arise only after the expiry of lock-in period of 5 years on 04.01.2017 and 18.01.2017 respectively. The complaint claiming relief qua these Policies was premature and was, thus, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
19. As regards the third Policy No.4000379319 with IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan, the said Policy did not come under the purview of IRDA Regulations 2010. The question, which now falls for consideration, is, as to whether the same acquired any surrender value or not. In this Policy, the sum insured was Rs.2,30,850/-; Policy Term was 25 years and premium payment period was 15 years. The respondent/complainant paid only one premium amounting to Rs.14,772/- plus Rs.221.58Ps as Service Tax plus Rs.6.65Ps as Education Cess.
20. Clause 7 of the Policy terms and conditions relating to Special Surrender Value, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-
7. Special surrender value A special surrender value is available once a policy acquires a paid up value, which is after one, two or three full years premiums have been paid for policies with premium payment period of 5, 10 and 15 years respectively. The special surrender values are not guaranteed and may be changed at any time, subject to the approval of the IRDA.
The table showing the paid up value factor, as tabulated in the Policy terms and conditions, being relevant, is also extracted hereunder:
Premium payment Period → 5 10 15 5 10 15 Policy term → 10 15 20 15 20 25 Complete years of premiums paid ↓ Less than 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 10% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0%
21. From the aforesaid clause and the table, it is clear that the paid up value for the Policy bearing No.4000379319 IDBI Federal Incomesurance Endowment and Money Back Plan, having Premium payment period of 15 years and Policy term as 25 years, would be 0%. Therefore, the respondent/complainant was not entitled to get any surrender value or paid up value for this Policy.
22. It is well settled principle of law that the parties are governed, by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and while construing the same, the Consumer Foras cannot add, subtract or delete any words therefrom. It was held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court, in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Garg Sons International, II (2013) CPJ 1 (SC)=I (2013) SLT 614, as under:-
It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties.
23. In United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corporation, III (1996) CPJ 8 (SC)= (1996) 6 SCC 428, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the principle of law, that it is a fundamental principle of Insurance Law, that utmost good faith must be observed, by the contracting parties. In M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (SC), Civil Appeal No.1375 of 2003, decided on 8.10.2010, the Honble Apex Court held that It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract."
24. As stated above, the parties are governed by the terms and conditions contained in the Policy. When as per the Policy terms and conditions, the Policy, in question, viz. Policy No.4000379319, did not acquire any surrender value as the same also did not acquire any paid up value, the respondent/complainant was not entitled to refund of any amount. The District Forum, thus, gravely erred in allowing the complaint and directing the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to refund the premium paid for the third Policy also after deduction of maximum discontinuance charges as per Regulation 7 of Regulations 2010. In our considered opinion, no deficiency, in rendering service or indulgence into unfair trade practice is attributable to the appellants/Opposite Parties.
25. In this view of the matter, the District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint and ordered for refund of Rs.2,09,000/- i.e. (Rs.2,15,000.00 - Rs.6,000.000 as maximum discontinuance charges) alongwith Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. Thus, the order impugned is liable to set aside.
26. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
27. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, is accepted with no order as to costs. The order impugned, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, before the District Forum, is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that in respect of Unit Linked Policies, the respondent/complainant shall be entitled to avail of the legal remedy after the expiry of the lock-in-period.
28. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
29. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
September 09, 2014.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.263 of 2014) Argued by:Sh.
Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the applicants/ appellants.
Sh.
Gurmohan Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated the 9th day of September, 2014 ORDER Alongwith the appeal, an application, for condonation of delay of 88 days, in filing the same (appeal), was moved, by the applicants/appellants, on the ground, that on receipt of a copy of the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the District Forum, the applicants/appellants, in consultation with the senior officials of the Company, took a decision to prefer the instant appeal. It was stated that as the approval was to be sought from the Head Office of the applicants/appellants, due to the cumbersome procedure involved, the delay of 88 days occurred, in filing the appeal. It was further stated that the delay caused was neither willful nor deliberate.
2. The respondent/complainant filed reply to the application for condonation of delay, aforesaid, wherein it was stated that the delay in filing the appeal was intentional, willful and deliberate and the applicants/appellants approached this Commission with unclean hands. It was further stated that it is evident from copy of the order dated 13.3.2014 annexed by the applicants/appellants, that the same was prepared 18.3.2014 and delivered to the applicants/appellants on 19.3.2014 and, as such, their contention that copy of the order was made available to them on 1.4.2014 is totally false and misleading. It was prayed that the application be dismissed.
3. Arguments, in the application were heard.
4. No doubt, there is delay of 88 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.
5. 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. "
6. 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.
7. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. The reasons, mentioned in the application, for condonation of delay are plausible. The application for condonation of delay, is duly supported by the affidavit of Sony George, Deputy Vice President (Legal) of the applicants/appellants. There is also force in the argument of the applicants/appellants that the delay in filing the appeal occurred as the approval for filing the appeal was to be obtained from the Head Office of the Company. The delay in filing the appeal was, thus, procedural and not intentional, willful or deliberate. 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 litigant alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the door against him. 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. In the instant case, in our considered opinion, there was no intentional and deliberate delay, in filing the appeal, by the applicants/appellants. There is, thus, sufficient cause, for condoning the delay. The application thus, deserves to be accepted.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the application for condonation of delay of 88 days, in filing the appeal, is allowed, and the delay is, accordingly, condoned.
9. Admitted.
10. It be registered.
11. Arguments, in the main appeal already heard.
12. Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, has been accepted with no order as to costs. The order impugned, passed by the District Forum, has been set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, before the District Forum, has been dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Ad