State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S National Ins. Co.Ltd. vs P.S Enterprises on 27 May, 2024
RP/73/2023 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS P.S. ENTERPRISES
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 23.11.2023
Date of hearing: 14.05.2024
Date of Decision: 27.05.2024
REVISION PETITION NO.- 73/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
NATIONAL LEGAL VERTICAL,
NEW DELHI-110055.
(Through: Mr. Varun Mishra, Advocate)
....Appellant
VERSUS
M/S PS ENTERPRISES,
THROUGH SOLE PROP. MR. PRAVEEN SETIA,
R/O AT: E-92, GROUND FLOOR,
LAJPAT NAGAR-1,
SOUTH DELHI, NEW DELHI-24.
(Through: Mr. Raghu Vasishth, Advocate)
.... Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 7
RP/73/2023 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS P.S. ENTERPRISES
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: None for the parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
ORDER
1. The Present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner impugning the Order dated 24.08.2023 passed by District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 21/2022 titled 'PS Enterprises Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.' whereby the Petitioner's Written Statement was refused to be taken on record on the ground that the Written Statement was filed over and above the statutory period.
2. The Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that Opposite Party/Appellant appeared before the District Commission and asserted that a copy of the complaint had not been furnished to him. Further, the District Commission granted the opportunity to the Appellant to obtain a copy of the complaint from the District Commission and the District Commission additionally directed the Appellant submit a reply along with advance copy to the Complainant/Respondent, within one month vide order dated 08.04.2022. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the copy of the complaint was collected by the Appellant on 12.05.2022 and thereafter the reply was filed on 20.05.2022. Lastly, the counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Commission failed to consider that due to the improper service of the copy of complaint, it considered the service date as 28.02.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 7 RP/73/2023 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS P.S. ENTERPRISES instead of 08.04.2022 or 12.05.2022. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Revisionist has prayed that the Impugned Order dated 24.08.2023 be set aside.
3. To deal with the present issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reproduced hereunder as:
"(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
4. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position makes it clear that the State Commission can entertain a revision petition in cases where the District Commission has acted extra-judicially or the District Commission has failedto exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Reverting to the material on record, it is the case of the Revisionist that the Revisionist has filed the reply within the stipulated period. However, it is to be noted that the Revisionist has not alleged any apparent error or material irregularity by the District Commission while passing the Impugned Order nor it is alleged that the District Commission has acted extra-judicially in contravention of the jurisdiction vested in it. A perusal of the record clearly suggests that even if we assume that the complaint alongwith documents were served to the Revisionist on 08.04.2022. Thereafter, the Revisionist only filed the Written Statement on 20.05.2022 after a delay of total 11 days from the date of service beyond the statutory period of 30 DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 7 RP/73/2023 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS P.S. ENTERPRISES days.
5. In order to condone the delay, the Revisionist has to satisfy this Commissionthat there was sufficient cause for filing the written statement after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officerreported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".
However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concernedto exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."
6. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 7 RP/73/2023 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS P.S. ENTERPRISES 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and applicant mustsatisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
7. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
-
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 7 RP/73/2023 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS P.S. ENTERPRISES Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. Inthe said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."
8. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Revisionist for the delay, according to us, the Revisionist has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. Accordingly, the application filed by the Opposite Party/Revisionist before the District Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement cannot be allowed and stands dismissed. Resultantly, the written statement filed by the Opposite Party cannot be taken on record.
9. Thus, we opine that District Commission has only exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by not taking on record the Written Statement filed beyond the statutory period and there is no material irregularity in the order dated24.08.2023 passed by the District Commission.
10. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Dwarka, New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 21/2022 titled PS Enterprises Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 73/2023 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 7 RP/73/2023 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS P.S. ENTERPRISES aforesaid judgment.
12. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission forthe perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On:
27.05.2024 LR-SM DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 7