State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Universal Sompo General Insurance ... vs Shri Ram Bhajan on 14 October, 2024
FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:23.09.2024
Date of hearing : 03.10.2024
Date of Decision : 14.10.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 632/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
UNIVERAL SOMPO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
UNIT NO. 1003, 1ST FLOOR, ACKRUTI STAR, MIDC
ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400093
(Through Ms. Anjali Chauhan
& Ms. Nitisha, Advocates
Email: [email protected]
Mobile No. 9967579887)
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
MR. RAM BHAJAN
S/O MR. HAR VILAS RATHORE
R/O HOUSE NO. C251, RADHA VIHAR
SABOLI, MANDOLI, DELHI-110032
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Ms. Anjali Chauhan, counsel for the appellant on VC.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 23.09.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.104/2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV (North-East District), D.C. Office Complex, Nand Nagri- 110093 wherein the compliant was allowed.
DISMISSED Page 1 of 11FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.2680/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Pushpashil Karve i.e. Authorized Representative of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.104/2023.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 2 to 7 of the application read as under:
"2. The Appellant Company became aware of the ex- parte order when notified via CONFONET on 18-07- 2024. After verifying and investigating the matter and upon the advice of the legal department, the Appellant Company appointed the present Counsel to procure the certified copies of all the pleadings from the Ld. Consume Forum. The present Counsel applied for the certified copy of all the pleadings from the Consumer Commission on 28.06.2024 and received the certified copy on 29.06.2024. It is submitted that after perusal of the entire case file and observing that the the alleged notice basis which the Appellant were preceded Ex- Parte was never served upon the Appellant as infact was served to Maruti Suzuki India Limited, which has no concern with the Appellant herein, deemed the present case fit for filing an appeal. The present counsel prepared the Appeal and sent it for approval and vetting on 06.08.24 to the Appellant.
3. That the appellant has received the certified copy of the impugned order only on 30.07.2024 when the final judgment, dated 01.03.2024 was received by the Appellant at Mumbai, the appellant came to know that the matter has been decided ex-parte against them.DISMISSED Page 2 of 11
FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024
4. The appellant after having verified and investigated the matter and upon the advise of the legal department of the appellant that the present case of fit for filing the appeal send the same to the present counsel for preparing and filing of the Appeal. It is stated that the present counsel has prepared the said Appeal and sent the same for approval and vetting on 06.08.24.
5. It is submitted that the matter was handled by multiple officers, leading to procedural delays. It is submitted that the senior officials meticulously reviewed and vetted the appeal's contents and sent the duly executed Appeal to the Counsel at Mumbai.
6. It is submitted that the duly vetted appeal along with the documents was subsequently forwarded to the associate counsel at Delhi on 10.08.24 by courier which was received by the counsel at Delji on 14.08.2024. The Associate Counsel diligently organized the appeal documents in accordance with the prescribed format.
7 It is stated that as per the statute the period for filing of Appeal is 45 days from the date of the order, therefore the appeal should have been filed by 15.04.2024 but since the certified copy order was received on 30.07.2024, therefore, the same is being filed after receipt of the certified copy of the order. As is explained above due to reasons stated above and due to movement of documents from Mumbai to Delhi, Delhi to Mumbai and Mumbai to Delhi there has been nominal delay and therefore the Appeal could not be filed within the limitation period but is being filed today i.e. 27.08.2024, that is after a delay of around 134 days which is in the interest of justice should be condoned."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
41. "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the DISMISSED Page 3 of 11 FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024 State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty percent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of impugned order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 01.03.2024 and the present appeal was filed on 23.09.2024 i.e. after a delay of 161 days.
8. In order to condone the delay, the appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl.
Land Acquisition Officer reported 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 DISMISSED Page 4 of 11 FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024 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 concerned to 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."
9. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under:-
"12. .........we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
10. 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 DISMISSED Page 5 of 11 FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024 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 PopatBahiruGoverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the 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.
11. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that '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 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.
12. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 01.03.2024 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 15.04.2024. However, the reasons stated for the delay are that the appellant became aware of ex-parte order when notified via Confonet on 18.07.2024; upon the advice of the legal department, the appellant appointed the present counsel to procure the certified copies of all the pleadings from the District Commission who applied DISMISSED Page 6 of 11 FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024 for the same on 28.06.2024 and received on 29.06.2024; after perusal of the same, it was found that notice by which the appellant/opposite party was proceeded ex-parte, was never served upon the appellant, however, it was served to Maruti Suzuki India Limited which has no concern with the appellant; the appellant received the certified copy of the impugned order on 30.07.2024 when the impugned order was received by the appellant at Mumbai; upon the advice of the legal department, the file was sent to the present counsel for filing the appeal who sent it for approval and vetting on 06.08.2024; the matter went to various desks and hands leading to procedural delay; senior officials of the appellant meticulously reviewed and vetted the matter and sent the same to counsel at Mumbai; thereafter the same was forwarded on 10.08.2024 to the associate counsel at Delhi by courier which was received on 14.08.2024; thereafter the associate counsel diligently organized the documents and file the present the present appeal on 23.09.2024.
13. It is note worthy that the appellant has submitted in para 2 of the application that they became aware of the ex-parte order when notified on 18.07.2024 via Confonet and their counsel applied for the certified copy of all the pleadings on 28.06.2024 which was received the same on the very next day i.e. 29.06.2024. On the other hand, the appellant had not mentioned about how they had become aware of the ex-parte order when notified on 18.07.2024 via Confonet whereas their counsel had already received the certified copy on 29.06.2024.
14. It has been submitted in para 2 of the application that the notice issued by the District Commission whereby the appellant were proceeded ex-parte was never served upon them and it was served to Maruti Suzuki India Limited. However, a perusal of page 40A i.e. the certified copy of the notice under Section 65(1), Consumer Protection Act, 2019 issued by the District Commission shows that the same DISMISSED Page 7 of 11 FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024 bears only Delhi address of the appellant/opposite party as mentioned in the Complaint and nowhere mentions with respect to Maruti Suzuki India Limited. The said notice at page 40A is produced as under:
DISMISSED Page 8 of 11FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024
15. Further, the appellant has mentioned in para 3 of the application that they have received the certified copy of the impugned order on 30.07.2024 at Mumbai. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order mentions Delhi address of the appellant/opposite party. It has nowhere been averred as to the date when Delhi office has received the impugned order. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the certified copy of the impugned order on 30.07.2024, in these circumstances also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 13.09.2024. Still there is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal.
16. The appellant has preferred not to mention the specific date as to when the appellant appointed the present counsel to procure the certified copies of entire pleadings; as to when it was decided that the present matter is fit for filing the appeal and as to when the matter was sent back to counsel for preparing the appeal; and as to when the associate counsel diligently organized the appeal in accordance with the prescribed format.
17. Furthermore, even if we assumed that the working of the appellant is just like a government department wherein several formalities and steps undertaken before deciding to file the appeal and the said delay was on behalf of red tape in the bureaucratic machinery, the reasons submitted by the appellant cannot be justification for condoning such delay. Our view is further fortified by decision of the Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as follows:
"12. .......The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation DISMISSED Page 9 of 11 FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024 undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
18. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the appellant for the delay except inculpating the government lengthy approval procedures. According to us, the appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. As a result, it is abundantly clear from the above that the appellant was moving at its own pace unmindful that the prescribed period to file an appeal is 45 days from the date of impugned judgment.
19. Therefore, the application (IA-2680/2024) filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
20. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
DISMISSED Page 10 of 11FA/632/2024 UNIVERAL SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. RAM BHAJAN DOD:14.10.2024
21. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties as well as forwarded to the corresponding E-mail address available on the record.
22. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 14.10.2024.
DISMISSED Page 11 of 11