National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Golden Multi Services Club Ltd. & Anr. vs Bhagiratharya & Ors. on 10 August, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1059 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 22/08/2016 in Appeal No. 1814/2011 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) 1. GOLDEN MULTI SERVICES CLUB LTD. & ANR. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE S.B. MANSION NO. 16, R N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 WEST BANGAL 2. GOLDEN MULTI SERVICES CLUB LTD. THROUGH MANAGER, KALI TIGDADA IN FRONT OF KALI MANDIR, GOPAL GANJ SAGAR MADHYA PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BHAGIRATHARYA & ORS. S/O. LT. H. ARYA, R/O. ARYA NIWAS CICIL WARD NO. 7, DISTRICT-DAMOH MADHYA PRADESH 2. NIRMALA ARYA W/O. LT. SHRI VIKRAM ARYA, R/O. ARYA NIWAS CICIL WARD NO. 7, DISTRICT-DAMOH MADHYA PRADESH 3. J.D. MAHAPATRA SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISION III, DIVISION INSURANCE BUILDING GROUND FLOOR, 8, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, KOLKATA-700001 WEST BENGAL 4. GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 3, MIDDLETON TOWN STREET KOLKATA-700071 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 10 Aug 2017 ORDER
1. This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by Golden Multi Services Club Ltd., Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order, dated 22.08.2016, passed by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (for short "the State Commission"), in Appeal No.1814 of 2011. By the impugned order, while affirming the order dated 09.11.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Damoh (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 112 of 2011, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint, preferred by Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not paying to them the assured sum of ₹5,00,000/- under the insurance policy, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainants the said sum of money with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 16.05.2011 till realization as also ₹5,000/- towards mental harassment and ₹2,000/- as litigation costs.
2. All the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioners herein, are engaged in the business of Insurance under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Respondent No.3 herein, for operation of group personal accident insurance policies. On 02.11.2004, in order to get insurance coverage for three members of his family, viz. wife Smt. Krishna Arya, son Vikram Singh, and daughter-in-law Smt. Nirmala Arya, Complainant No.1 took an insurance policy from the Petitioners, by paying premium of ₹9097/-. The policy was valid for a period of ten years, i.e. from 01.12.2004 30.11.2014. The sum assured was ₹5,00,000/- in respect of each of the Insured. In respect of the policy, on the life of Vikram Singh, his wife, Complainant No.2, was registered as the nominee. Unfortunately, on 04.02.2010, said Vikram Singh Arya died in a car accident. Upon death of her husband, Complainant No.2 was entitled to the assured amount of ₹5,00,000/- under the policy. However, instead of paying the assured sum, the Insurance Company offered a sum of ₹3,00,000/- as full and final settlement of the claim. Having failed to receive any response even to the legal notice, and left with no other option, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, inter alia, praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay to Complainant No.2 the assured amount of ₹5,00,000/-.
3. Being unsuccessful before the State Commission, the Petitioners are before us in the present Revision Petition.
4. It is pointed out by the Office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 128 days in filing the same.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay, we are of the opinion that the explanation furnished is wholly unsatisfactory.
6. The main grounds for the delay in filing the present Revision Petition, as pleaded, are that their Advocate, who was conducting the Appeal before the State Commission, did not inform them about the fate of the said proceedings, as, on account of renovation of his office, he had lost the contact details of the Petitioners; Petitioners' Regional Office was at Sagar, M.P. and it was not possible for them to commute to Damoh, M.P. to get information in the matter on day-to-day basis; the Petitioners came to know about the impugned order in the first week of March, 2017, when they visited their Advocate; by the third week of March, 2017 the Petitioners' Head Office decided to file a Revision Petition; and finally after completing the necessary formalities, including translation etc., the Revision Petition was filed on 18.04.2017.
7. While we fail to fathom any reason why the Petitioners' Counsel would not apprise them about fate of their Appeal, which stood dismissed, in the absence of any explanation in this regard from the Counsel concerned, the stated plea does not appear to be bonafide. Since the Appeal had been filed by the Petitioners themselves sometime in the year 2011 and allegedly they were not receiving any feedback from their Counsel, being a Company of scale, its functionaries were supposed to keep a track of the Appeal as the District Forum had fastened the afore-stated liability on it. The status of the Appeal could be ascertained on telephone or any other digital mode. Admittedly, between the filing of their Appeal in the year 2011 and prior to March, 2017, when they learnt about the impugned order, the Petitioners did not take any step to ascertain the status of the said Appeal. Further, the Application is conspicuously silent as what prompted the Petitioners suddenly to visit their Advocate in March, 2017. Pertinently, by the said time, the stipulated period of 90 days available for filing the Revision Petition was already over, yet the Petitioners took over 40 days in filing the same, over and above the said stipulated period.
8. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the Petitioners have failed to make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of 128 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.
9. Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing of the present Revision Petition. Moreover, condonation of the delay would be travesty of justice as the Complainant widow is waiting for settlement of claim under the insurance policy, on the demise of her husband, in the year 2010. Nothing is on record to show that even the amount of ₹3,00,000/-, initially offered by the Insurance Company to the Complainant, has been received by her.
10. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER