State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Health Insurance Ltd vs Preetam Chand on 28 August, 2023
A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023
M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:20.04.2023
Date of hearing :01.05.2023
Date of Decision :28.08.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 168/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS RELIGARE HEALTH
INSURANCE CO. LTD.)
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED PERSON
OFFICE AT
FLAT NO.301, DDA BUILDING NO.5,
DISTRICT CENTRE JANAKPURI,
NEW DELHI-110058
ALSO AT:-
UNIT NO. 604-607, 6TH FLOOR, TOWER-C
UNITECH CYBER PARK, SECTOR-39
GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122001
ALSO AT:-
VIPUL TECH SQUARE, TOWER-C, 3RD FLOOR
GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR-43
GURUGRAM-122009 (HARYANA)
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
1.MR. PEETAM CHAND S/O MR. RAM SWAROOP R/O K-29, GALI NO.16 RAJAPURI, NEW DELHI-110059
2. MR. RAJNEESH ARORA S/O MR. ANIL ARORA C/O M/S HEALTH INSURANCE LTD.
M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD.
FLAT NO. 301, DDA BUILDING NO.5 DISTRICT CENTRE JANAKPURI NEW DELHI-110058 ALLOWED Page 1 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
ALSO AT:
R/O HOUSE NO.116, FIRST FOOR, BLOCK-B, SECTOR-1, ROHINI DELHI, ROHINI SECTOR-7, NORTH WEST DELHI, DELHI-110085.
....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present: Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel for the appellant/applicant.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 20.04.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 in Complaint Case No.20/2022 vide which written statement of the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 was not taken on record by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII (Dwarka), Sector-20, Dwarka, Delhi- 110077.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.884/2023 seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the appeal, filed alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Parth Arora son of Mr. Ish Arora, authorized representative of the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved without any provision of law.
However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.20/2022.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No.3 to 7 of the application read as under:
"3. That on 7.10.2022 the advocate of the appellant with authorized representative of the appellant appeared and filed detailed affidavit explaining the true and correct facts stating that they never received notice from the ld.ALLOWED Page 2 of 18
A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
District Commission and only advance copy of the complaint was received and as such there was no service of notice in the eyes of law and prayed for filing the reply on their behalf. That the ld. Commission after hearing the parties put up the complaint for orders on 1.11.2022.
4. That thereafter dates were being given and no order was being passed and the advocate for the appellant kept inquiring from the registry of the ld. District Commission whether any order was passed or not, however he was constantly informed that order was pending.
5. That left with no option appellant applied for inspection of the court file on 21.2.2023.
6. That the court filed was inspected by the appellant on 14.3.2023, then it came to knowledge that order has been passed on 6.1.2023 by the ld. District Commission closing the defence of the appellant. That the appellant immediately obtained certified copy of the order dated
6.1.2023 and forwarded the same to the concerned officer of the appellant.
7. That on the instructions of the concerned officer, advocate immediately drafted the present appeal and filed it in the registry before the Hon'ble Commission."
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 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:ALLOWED Page 3 of 18
A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
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 judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 06.01.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 20.04.2023 i.e. after a delay of 59 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 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 ALLOWED Page 4 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
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'bleNCDRC 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 AnshulAggarwal 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 Thirunagalingamin 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 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.ALLOWED Page 5 of 18
A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
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 06.01.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 20.02.2023. However, the appellant has failed to file the present appeal within the stipulated period. The reasons for delay stated in the application are that impugned order dated 06.01.2023 came to the knowledge of the Appellant on 14.03.2023 when the court file was inspected by the appellant as the complaint was put up for order by the learned District Commission on 01.11.2022; immediately, certified copy of the order was applied which was received on the same day; thereafter upon instructions, appeal was drafted and filed which caused delay in filing the appeal.
13. In the present case, the Appellant has explained the delay caused in filing this appeal, in Para No. 3 to Para No.7 of the application for condonation of delay, it has been submitted by the Appellant that the impugned order came to the knowledge of the appellant only on 14.03.2023 and on the same day certified copy of the same was obtained/received from the learned District Commission.
ALLOWED Page 6 of 18A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
14. We deem it appropriate to refer the following recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission:-
I. Judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1246 of 2023 titled as Shashank Anil Singh vs. Star Health & Allied Insurance Company (Against the Order dated 20/04/2023 in Appeal No. 104/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"1. Heard Mr. Shashank Anil Singh, the petitioner in person.
2. The above revision has been filed against the Order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 20.04.2023 dismissing the FA No. 104 of 2023 as time-barred in as much as the delay condonation application has been rejected. Petitioner pointed that impugned Order was passed on 20.01.2023 and free copy has been supplied on 24.01.2023. The period of 45 days from supply of the free copy expired on 10.03.2023 while the appeal was filed on 10.03.2023 there was no delay at all. The State Commission wrongly dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
3. A perusal of the Order of State Commission shows that the State Commission has counted limitation from the date of pronouncing the judgement dated 20.01.2023 while under section 12 of the Limitation Act the period in obtaining the certified copy has to be excluded and, therefore, the order of State Commission suffers from error apparent on the face of record. It is liable to be set aside. The revision is allowed. The Order of State Commission dated 20.04.2023 passed in FA No. 104 of 2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to State Commission who shall admit the appeal and proceed to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after giving notice to the other side.
4. The principal onus of informing the respondent of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. He shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.
However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring its presence in order to proceed in accordance ALLOWED Page 7 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondent.
In case the respondent has objection, it may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that it will raise its objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondent may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise its objection.
5. If the respondent move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondent does not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law."
II. Judgment dated 17.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1360 of 2023 titled as Sudha Kapil & Anr. vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Against the Order dated 07/03/2023 in Appeal No. 9/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"1. This revision petition has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 07.03.2023 of the State Commission in appeal no. 09 of 2023 arising out of the Order dated 11.11.2022 of the District Commission in complaint no. 284 of 2020.
2. It appears that the earlier second appeal no. 20 of 2023 was filed by the revisionists (the 'complainants') and the following Order dated 03.05.2023 was passed by this Commission therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said Order are reproduced below for reference:
1. This second appeal no. 20 of 2023 has been filed under Section 51(2) of the Act 2019 apropos the State Commission's Order dated 07.03.2023 in first appeal no. 09 of 2023 arising out of the District Commission's Order dated 11.11.2022 in complaint no. 284 of 2020.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants (the 'complainants') submits that the complainants are ALLOWED Page 8 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
aggrieved with the impugned Order of 07.03.2023 since not only has the State Commission erred in calculating the period of delay in filing first appeal before it but has also erred in holding that sufficient cause to condone the delay was not forthcoming. Submission is that the State Commission has committed jurisdictional error and acted with material irregularity. Learned counsel further submits that the complainants wish to withdraw their present second appeal and in its stead want to file revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019.
3. In the wake of the above submissions the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the complainants to file revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists (the 'complainants'). Perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 11.11.2022 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 of the State Commission and the petition.
4. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 dismissed the appeal of the complainants being barred by limitation with the observations which read as follows:
Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicants/appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainants is that the State Commission has committed a gross error in calculating the period of limitation while dismissing the appeal of the complainants vide its Order dated 07.03.2023 and has completely missed to advert to or attribute any significance to the date when the free certified copy of the impugned Order was provided to the complainants. The contention is that the State Commission has only taken into account the date of Order i.e. 11.11.2022, when the District Commission passed its Order and not the date when the free certified copy of the impugned Order was supplied to the complainants as per ALLOWED Page 9 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
rules and regulations but which was of crucial relevance. The submission is that on that reckoning, the complainants had filed the appeal in the State Commission well within the limitation period as prescribed by the law. It has also been submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also adverted to this aspect in a different matter and has taken a view which favours the contention of the complainants. Learned counsel relied upon the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Housing Board, Haryana vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association &Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 672. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Bench to observations made in the afore said decision whereby the need, the significance and the crucial relevance of the time when the free copy of the Order is provided to the party has been expatiated upon for the purpose of counting the period of limitation. The aforesaid decision was also quoted and referred to in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission this aspect, which focused on the date of supply of the free certified copy of the impugned order to the complainants has completely been ignored and the State Commission has glossed over this germane legal aspect to the utter detriment of the complainants.
6. It has been further pointed out that even though the contents of the application seeking condonation of delay have been referred to in the impugned Order, despite that there is absolutely no discussion or views expressed with regard to aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which was relied upon by the appellant. Further submission is that even otherwise, in the circumstances of the case it is very much clear that the said presumed delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission was also so insignificantly small that in all fairness in order to meet the ends of justice and not to leave the complainants remediless, the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay as there was convincing explanation for the alleged delay which constituted sufficient case to condone the same. The submission is that the facts and circumstances of the case are such that no negligent conduct or deliberate intention on the ALLOWED Page 10 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
part of the complainants to delay the filing of appeal could be adversely inferred or evinced out.
7. The Bench has perused the record, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainants.
It may be useful to quote some relevant paragraphs of the application moved before State Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which read as follows:
2. That the above-caption Appeal was listed before this Hon'ble Commission on 17.01.2023 wherein this Hon'ble Commission was prima facie of the opinion that the appeal is time barred, hence the Appellants shall file the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. That without prejudice to the rights of the Appellants the present application for condonation of delay is being fled only in compliance of the directions given by this Hon'ble Commission. It is hereby pertinent to mention that the filing of the present application does not in any manner amounts to admission on part of the Appellants with respect to any delay in filing the captioned appeal.
4. That it is outrightly and humbly submitted that there is no delay in filing of the present appeal against the final order / judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, District-South West, Dwarka, Delhi in case bearing CC No. 284 of 2022.
5. That the Appellants had not received the free copy of final Order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, District-South West, Dwarka, Delhi in case bearing CC No. 284 of 2020, in compliance of Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, nor had any information whatsoever as regard passing of the impugned order dated 11.11.2020.
6. That on 29.11.2022, the Counsel appearing for the Appellant before the Ld. DCDRC, went to the Ld. DCDRC-VII, District-South West, Dwarka to enquire about the status of the judgement, if any passed in the mater which was pending before the Ld. DCDRC, to ALLOWED Page 11 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
which it came to his knowledge that the final order in the matter has already been passed and the first / free copy of the impugned Order was provided to the said counsel on te same day i.e. on 29.11.2022. The copy of the impugned Order which is attached to the appeal is the same first / free copy of the Order which the Appellants have right to receive in accordance with the aforesaid regulations, which was handed over Dasti to the said counsel by the registry of the Ld. DCDRC.
7. That it is submitted that the though the impugned Order in the captioned appeal is passed on 11.11.2022 but the limitation for filing the captioned appeal commences / runs / reckons from the date of receiving of the free copy of the Order and not from the date of the order and not even from the date of pronouncement of the order. It is submitted that since the Ld. DCDRC's impugned order first / free certified copy to be provided to the parties was itself provided to the complainant therein / appellant herein on 29.11.2022, therefore, period of limitation of 45 days as prescribed in Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shall commence from the said date only. The said view has already been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Housing Board, Haryana Vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association &Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 672.
8. That on computing the limitation period of 45 days from 29.11.2022, the limitation would end / expire on 13.01.2023 whereas the captioned appeal was filed on 09.01.2023 i.e., within the limitation period. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the captioned appeal, but still the present application is being filed by the appellant in compliance of the order dated 17.01.2023 and as a matter of abundant precaution.
9. That it is humbly submitted that although there is no delay in filing the captioned appeal but if this Hon'ble Commission is of the view that there is any delay then the delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice for the reasons already mentioned above particularly in view of the fact that passing of the judgement / final order by the Ld. DCDRC / ALLOWED Page 12 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
impugned order challenged herein, was not in the knowledge of the appellant.
10. That this present Application is bona fide and in the interest of justice.
8. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 of the State Commission shows that the aforesaid aspect of the matter which has been emphasized by the learned counsel for the complainants and which relates to commencement and counting of the period of limitation and the views expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Housing Board, Haryana (supra) and the observations made therein in this regard have completely escaped the attention of the State Commission. There is hardly any observation made regarding the same in its impugned Order. If the State Commission found the aforesaid case distinguishable, it could have very well given its reasons in this regard. But nothing of that sort has been done. It is difficult to speculate what view would have been taken by the fora below had it considered the aforesaid aspect. The Bench is of the considered view that the present matter ought to be remanded back to the State Commission to reconsider the same afresh and to arrive at its findings in that perspective afresh. While reconsidering the matter the State Commission would also do well to keep in perspective the fact that in this case the complainants have pleaded to have acquired the knowledge of the Order on the same date when its free copy had been supplied to them, and not before it. This is not a case in which there is any material to convincingly show or demonstrate that even before this supply of free certified copy, the complainants had acquired the knowledge of the Order and then negligently or deliberately or intentionally did not bother to receive or obtain its copy. Beside that it may be further observed that even the view taken by the State Commission regarding the sufficiency or insufficiency of cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal also appears to be a little harsh, if not inclement, leaving the complainants remediless. The doors of justice could better have been kept ajar in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
9. Sequel to the above the impugned Order dated 07.03.2019 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the State Commission with the request that it may ALLOWED Page 13 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
decide the matter in issue afresh in view of the observations made herein above and proceed further as per the law.
...."
III. Judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1673 of 2023 titled as SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs. Anuj Kumar (Against the Order dated 13/02/2023 in Appeal No. A/1772/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"The office has submitted report that there is delay of 24 days in filing the revision. The petitioner has filed IA/8789/2023 for condoning the delay. The impugned order was passed on 13.02.2023. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on 15.06.2023 which was issued on the same day and the revision petition was filed through e-filing on 22.06.2023. Subject to objection of the other side, delay in filing the revision is condoned. Above revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772/2016 as time barred.
Order of the District Forum was passed on 28.05.2016 and certified copy of the order was issued on 24.08.2016. The appeal was filed on
08.09.2016. The State Commission in the impugned order, found that since the order of District Forum had passed in presence of the parties therefore, they had no justification for not obtaining its copy prior to 24.08.2016. Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 mandates for supply of free copy of the order. Under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963, the period taken in issuing certified copy of the order has to be excluded, while computing limitation.
A perusal of the photostate copy of the certified copy of the order dated 28.05.2016 shows that free copy was issued only on 24.08.2016 and the appeal was filed on 08.09.2016. It was well within limitation. The State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred.
ORDER In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Order dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772 of ALLOWED Page 14 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
2016 is set aside. The appeal is treated as filed within time. The State Commission is directed to decide the case on merits in accordance with law." IV. Judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1705 of 2023 titled as M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur (Against the Order dated 10/07/2023 in Appeal No. A/249/2023 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"Above revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 13.04.2023 and the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 10.07.2023 whereby the appeal has been dismissed as time barred. Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the illegality of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission only. In the present case, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint by the order dated 11.04.2022. Thereafter, review application was allowed on 18.10.2022 and thereafter, the complaint was decided by the order dated 13.04.2023. The appellant filed the present appeal before the State Commission against the order dated 13.04.2023 on 01.06.2023 along with IA/1311/2023 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the condonation of delay application, it has been stated that the free copy was not received to the appellant. The appellant only received copy when the counsel for the complainant sent its copy on
25.04.2023. Thereafter, the appellant applied for issue of certified copy on 25.05.2023 and it was received on the same day and the appeal was filed on 01.06.2023. It was within 45 days from the knowledge of the order. Therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned but the condonation of delay has been rejected and the appeal has been dismissed as time barred.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has relied upon the dispatch no. DCDRC/ND/463-64 by which free copy was dispatched to the parties but the State Commission has failed to note that the address of the appellant was not correctly mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the free copy was not received by the appellant as stated by the appellant. In these circumstances, disbelieving the version of the petitioner only ALLOWED Page 15 of 18 A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
without examining whether the address mentioned on the dispatch was correct or not, is not correct.
ORDER In the result, the order is liable to be set aside. Revision is allowed. The order of the State Commission dated 10.07.2023 dismissing FA/245/2023 is set aside. Condonation of delay application i.e. IA/1311/2023 is allowed, and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. State Commission is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law."
V. Judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1711 of 2023 titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. S.B. Mittal & Ors. (Against the Order dated 13/04/2023 in Appeal No. FA/72/2022 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -
"1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
2. The above revision has been filed against the order of The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 13.04.2023, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed as delay condonation application has been rejected.
3. A perusal of the impugned order of the State Commission shows that the impugned order of the District Forum was passed on 07.03.2022 and the appeal was filed on 05.05.2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, has waived the limitation with effect from 15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022, therefore, there was no delay at all and the State Commission has illegally dismissed the appeal as time barred.
4. In the result, the revision petition succeeds. The order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the State Commission in FA/72/2022 is set aside and the appeal is restored to its original number. It is held that the appeal has been filed within time.
....."
15. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble NCDRC, it is mandatory to supply copy of the impugned order to the parties and the period taken in issuing certified copy of the order has to be excluded while computing limitation.
ALLOWED Page 16 of 18A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023 M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
16. Hence, if we calculate the period of limitation from 14.03.2023 i.e. the date when the impugned order was received by counsel of the Appellant, the present appeal was filed on 20.04.2023 i.e. within the period of limitation.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the application bearing IA No.884/2023 filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
18. A perusal of the record shows that Respondents are yet to be served.
19. Issue notice of the appeal as well as IA-883/2023 seeking stay the operation of the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 to the Respondent through registered post and speed post. The Appellant /counsel may also send notice to the Respondents via Whatsapp and E-mail. This is in addition to the already existing modes of service in order to ensure an expeditious process.
20. Notice be given dasti to the Appellant /counsel. The Appellant /counsel shall thereafter, file an affidavit stating that the service has been affected on the Respondents.
21. List the matter on 17.10.2023.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
PINKI
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
ALLOWED Page 17 of 18
A/168/2023 DOD:28.08.2023
M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LTD. VS. MR. PREM CHAND & ORS.
28.08.2023 A-168/2023 Vide separate detailed order, application bearing IA No.884/2023 seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
A perusal of the record shows that Respondents are yet to be served.
Issue notice of the appeal as well as IA-883/2023 seeking stay the operation of the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 to the Respondent through registered post and speed post. The Appellant /counsel may also send notice to the Respondents via Whatsapp and E-mail. This is in addition to the already existing modes of service in order to ensure an expeditious process.
Counsel for the Appellant is directed to file an affidavit affirming the email address & whatsapp No. of the Respondents under Rule 12 of the Delhi Courts Service of Processes by Courier, Fax and Electronic Mail Service (Civil Proceedings), Rules 2010.
Notice be given dasti to the Appellant /counsel. The Appellant /counsel shall thereafter, file an affidavit stating that the service has been affected on the Respondents.
List the matter on 17.10.2023.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ALLOWED Page 18 of 18