National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Satish Khanna And Anr. on 5 March, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(President)
1. This petition is by the insurer-opposite party. It was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that it was barred by limitation of 10 days. It was submitted before us that delay of 10 days is not material and State Commission as a matter of course should have condoned the same. We do not think that would be a right approach. If argument proceeds on this basis then why not to condone the delay of 11 days, 12 days and so on and then there cannot be any time limit. In Consumer Forum a matter has to be decided in a certain set time frame. A Consumer Forum cannot become lax on this. There may be that because of pendency of arrears there could be delay in disposal of cases but that would not mean that the period fixed at various stages by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should be given a go by. Sufficient cause for condonation of delay has to be shown. Grounds of delay in the present case is as usual that file moved from one place to another in the office of the petitioner and then to the Advocate and on that amount delay occurred. There is nothing new in these grounds and is being used in all the cases whatever is the amount of delay. State Commission observed that the application of condonation of delay is drafted in a casual manner and there was no ground to justify the delay. We would therefore uphold the order of the State Commission.
2. Still in all fairness to the petitioner-opposite party we refer to the order on the complaint as rendered by the District Forum. Dispute is regarding insurance claim. Complainant had taken insurance policy against theft in his shop premises. During the currency of the policy theft took place but the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the premises where theft took place was not insured. Facts shows that much before the theft, insurer was informed of the change of address and endorsement on the policy was requested. Insurer sat over the request which would have been a mere formality in such circumstances of the case. No reason is forthcoming as to why endorsement was not made in the policy and what objection insurer could have to the change of premises and nothing was communicated to the complainant. It was therefore a clear case of deficiency in service as rightly held by the District Forum. Complaint was, therefore allowed. It was directed that insurer will pay Rs. 67,549/- being the amount of loss on account of theft with interest @ 12% per annum to be calculated after four months from the date of lodging the claim with the insurer. Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as cost of the complaint.
3. We, therefore, do not find it is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed.