State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Aia Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs 1.Suman Dhingra Wife Of Late Shri J.K. ... on 26 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.119 of 2014 Date of Institution: 18.02.2014 Date of Decision: 26.02.2014 TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (Formerly known as TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) SCO No.107-108, 2nd Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh-160047 through Sh. Harsimran Singh, Assistant Manager-Legal. Old Office: (Registered No.110) 7th & 8th Floor Lotus Tower, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 and care of Friends Color Images Private Ltd., Plot No.148, Sector 4, IMT Manesar-Gurgaon-122050, Haryana. Appellant (Opposite Party No.2) Versus 1. Suman Dhingra wife of Late Shri J.K. Dhingra Advocate 2. Madhav Dhingra 3. Raghav Dhingra both minor sons of Sh. J.K. Dhingra minors through mother Mrs. Suman Dhingra/complainant No.1 as Guardian and next friend r/o 464, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra. Respondents (Complainants) 4. Continental Suraksha Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. 1079, 10th Floor Aggarwal Millennium Tower-11 Neta Ji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 through its Managing Director. 5. Continental Suraksha Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.12, sector 17, Kurukshetra through its Manager (now closed). Respondents (Opposite Parties No.1 & 3) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the Appellant: Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate. O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 13th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Kurukshetra.
2. Smt. Suman Dhingra complainant (respondent No.1 herein) had taken two Life Insurance Policies, each for rupees one lac, from the TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Limited in July, 2004 in the names of her minor sons Madhav Dhingra and Raghav Dhingra. The annual premium of each policy was Rs.6666/-. Suman Dhingra paid premium from July, 2004 to February, 2007. Unfortunately, husband of Suman Dhingra died due to which the complainant was not in a position to pay further premium. She surrendered the policies in September, 2007 and demanded the amount paid by her, from the opposite parties but she was not paid.
3. The respondents-complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.
4. The District Forum allowed and issued following direction:-
we direct OP No.2 to release the amount of policies i.e. sum deposited by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on their part. We also direct the OP No.2 to pay compensation for causing harassment for the last six years in the sum of Rs.20,000/- to each of the policy holder and also to pay litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.5500/- within a period of 30 days, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 9% w.e.f. September, 2007 till its realization.
5. There is a delay of 122 days in filing of this appeal the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant by filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
6. The ground for delay taken in the application is that the certified copy of the impugned order was never received by the appellant as its office was closed/shifted. The duplicate copy of the order was received on February 11, 2014 which caused delay in filing of the appeal.
7. For filing appeal against the order of the District Forum the period provided in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, is 30 days. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act, 1986, rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.
8. The Honble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about has right must explain every days delay.
9. In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 the Honble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the sufficient cause for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.
10. Honble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.3104 of 2012 Ram Kishan versus UHBVNL, decided on 03.12.2012, has observed as under:-
3. The authorities cited by the petitioner in Para 4 of the application are also not applicable to this case. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a special law which prescribes summary procedure. The appeal has to be decided within 90 days. There is delay of 250 days which cannot be condoned on frivolous grounds. The CP Act, 1986 prescribes its own period of limitation. The provisions of CP Act, 1986 must be followed strictly.
4. 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.
5. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010, in which it was held that 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.
11. In Revision Petition No.728 of 2013 titled as Koganti Atchuta Rao & anr vs. Putcha Purnachandra Rao decided on 09.04.2013, the Honble National Consumer Commission has relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and observed as under:-
While dealing with the issue pertaining to condonation of delay the Supreme Court in the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 65 (SC) has observed thus: -
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.
Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (supra) has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Honble Supreme Court observed:-
4 This Court in Anshulal Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).
5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.
6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.
In the aforesaid judgment Honble Supreme Court has highlighted that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay the Court must bear in mind the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute which would get defeated if the Court was to entertain highly belated petitions.
12. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation given by the appellant for the delay except mentioning of shifting their office, which is not sufficient, the appellant has failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone the delay of 122 days.
Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
13. Even on merit, it is a case where minors benefits are involved. No order which is adverse to the rights of minors can be passed.
14. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.
15. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
26.02.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL