National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Akhtar Bano on 28 October, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1947 OF 2008 (From the order dated 30.7.2007 in Appeal No. 863/2006 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through M.D./Chairman, Regd. Office 3, Middleton Street Calcutta. 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through the Branch Manager Nagaur (Rajasthan) Through Manager (Legal), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office Jeevan Nidhi, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through its Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. 4th Floor, Jeevan Bharati Building, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001 Petitioners/Opp. Parties Versus Akhtar Bano W/o Mehboob Khan R/o Sipahiyon-Ka-Mohalla, Merta-City Rajasthan Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, Advocate For Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Arvind Garg, Advocate with Mehboob Khan, husband of Respondent. PRONOUNCED ON 28th October, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 30.7.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 863/2006 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Akhtar Bano by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondents Jeep No. RJ-21/T-0884 was insured with OP/Petitioners for a period commencing from 28.12.2003 to 27.12.2004 for Rs.4,29,400/-. Vehicle met with an accident on 24.12.2004 and the vehicle was totally damaged. Claim was submitted by the complainant to the OP which was repudiated. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,07,930/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and further allowed cost of Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. Both the parties preferred appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission dismissed appeal filed by the complainant, but partly allowed appeal filed by the OP/petitioner and amount of compensation was reduced to Rs.3,67,137/- from Rs.4,07,930/- against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. This revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Number of days has not been mentioned in the application, but as per office report, there was delay of 171 days in filing revision petition.
5. In the application for condonation of delay, petitioner submitted that copy of impugned order was received by the petitioner on 8.8.2007 and the matter was referred to the Regional Office of the Insurance Company at Jaipur, who further referred it to Head Office at Calcutta and it was decided to file revision petition. Later on, file was sent to the Regional Office at New Delhi, who marked the case to Counsel for preparation of the revision petition. During preparation of revision petition, it was observed that certain documents were in Hindi, which were needed to be translated in English. After receiving documents, revision petition was prepared and sent for approval.
Insurance Company inserted certain changes in the draft and modified revision petition was sent to Insurance Company for signatures and then this revision petition was filed. It was further submitted that there had been some delay on the part of Insurance Company even after exercising due diligence and pursuing the matter with all seriousness and commitment so, delay may be condoned.
6. Perusal of application for condontion of delay reveals that no date has been given in the application that when the file was sent to the Regional Office, then to Head Office, then back to Regional Office and then to the Counsel for preparation of revision petition and then to Insurance Company for signing revision petition. In the absence of any date for aforesaid purposes in the application for condonation of delay, it cannot be ascertained at what level inordinate delay was caused, but admittedly there is delay of 171 days in filing revision petition. No reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of inordinate delay of 171 days. Merely by mentioning that file was moved from one office to another office, inordinate delay of 171 days cannot be condoned.
7. As there is inordinate delay of 171 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court.
8. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been 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.
9. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;
It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.
10. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;
We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.
11. Honble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.
has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments.
12. Honble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under:
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.
13. As there is no justification for condonation of inordinate delay of 171 days, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.
14. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed and revision petition is barred by limitation, revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the count of delay alone and we need not to decide the matter on merits.
15. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation with no order to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k