National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Golden Multi Services Club Of vs 1. Ashok Alias Rahul Samanta & Ors. on 3 August, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3811 OF 2011 WITH I.A. Nos.1 & 2 OF 2011 and I.A. Nos.3 & 4 OF 2012 (From the order dated 24.05.2011 in Appeal No.1539/2010 of the State Commission, Rajasthan) GOLDEN MULTI SERVICES CLUB OF GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 Petitioner Versus 1. ASHOK ALIAS RAHUL SAMANTA S/O LATE RAJENDRA SAMANTA, VILLAGE BARA, P.O. MALONI KHAND, THE SAIPUR, P.S. KOLAI, DHAULPUR 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION III, 8, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, KOLKATA 700001 3. INDRA PRAKASH YADAV S/O RAJENDRA YADAV, RAJ KHODA BYPASS ; DHOLPUR Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate with Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Advocate Pronounced on : 3rd August, 2012 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B.GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER By this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 24.5.2011, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short, State Commission) vide which appeal of the petitioner against order dated 18.3.2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhaulpur was dismissed and order of District Forum was affirmed. Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed.
2. Brief facts are that respondent no.1 subscribed for life insurance for himself and his wife from petitioner/OP no.2 and respondent no.2/OP no.1 by purchasing an Accident Insurance Policy. The policy was meant to cover the whole life time of respondent no.1 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and in event of death of his wife a claim of Rs.1 lakh is payable. The validity period of the said policy was from 15.4.2004 to 14.4.2019. On 6.7.2007, while respondent no.1 was riding his motorcycle carrying his wife and child, meanwhile a negligently driven tractor collided with his vehicle, due to which respondent no.1s son died on the spot and his injured wife died later on. Respondent no.1 filled up the claim form of his deceased wife and submitted through petitioner who forwarded it to respondent no.2. However, they did not honour the claim. Accordingly, complaint was filed before the District Forum.
3. Petitioner and respondent no.2 did not appear before the District Forum and as such complaint was decided ex parte against the present petitioner. District Forum, while allowing the complaint of respondent no.1, directed the petitioner and others to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh along with interest @ 10% from the date of death till the date of its actual payment and also awarded Rs.1 lakh to respondent no.1. Order of District Forum was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission which was dismissed, vide the impugned order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay.
5. Initially, in this application no period of delay was mentioned. Later on, fresh application seeking condonation of delay of 117 days has been filed. As per averments made in the application, petitioner was not communicated the order passed by the State Commission by Advocate on record for a reasonably long time. After several telephonic reminders, advocate applied for certified copy which was received by him on 29.6.2011 and the same was received by petitioner on 6.7.2011.
It is further alleged that on 2.8.2011, office of petitioner requested its advocate to send all the required documents for preparation of revision petition, which were received on 16.9.2011. Petitioner, thereafter obtaining instructions to file instant matter on 19.9.2011 send the papers to its advocate in Delhi. The advocate asked for certain documents which were sent to him on 25.10.2011.
Thereafter, on 20.11.2011, petitioner sent rest of papers to advocate in Delhi by post.
6. Hence, it is contended by learned counsel that petitioner has given sufficient explanation as to why there is delay in filing of the present petition.
7. As per petitioners own case, it received the copy of impugned order on 6.7.2011 and only on 2.8.2011, petitioner has sent the papers for preparing the revision petition which was finally received on 16.9.2011. It has nowhere been stated as to why it has taken so long for sending the papers for the purpose of filing of the revision petition. There is no explanation whatsoever for all this period. Counsel for the petitioner had received the papers in 3rd week of Sept., 2011, whereas revision petition was filed before this Commission only on 23.11.2011. Again, there is no sufficient explanation as to why two months were taken to file revision petition. No name of the Advocate has been mentioned in the entire application from whom the advice was sought nor his affidavit in support of the present application has been filed.
8. It is well settled that sufficient cause in each case is a question of fact.
9. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Court has observed ;
We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.
10. Recently, in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) Honble Supreme Court has laid down 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.
11. Reasons for delay mentioned in the application do not come within the purview of sufficient cause. It is also manifestly clear from the record that petitioner has been conducting this litigation in a very casual and careless manner as petitioner remained ex- parte before the District Forum. Thus, a valuable right has accrued to respondent no.1.
12. Accordingly, we find no sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing of this revision petition which is beyond the period of limitation. Hence, application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, present petition being barred by the limitation also stands dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) MEMBER Sonia/