National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shri P. Rangaswamy on 11 November, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1616 OF 2011 with (Application for condonation of Delay) (Against the order dated 14.9.2010 in First Appeal No.983/2004 of the State Commission, Kerala) National Insurance Company Ltd. 3rd Floor, East Fort Complex Palakkad Also at DRO-I, Jeevan Bharti, Connaught Circus New Delhi .Petitioner Versus 1. Shri P. Rangaswamy Proprietor Kolayakkad, Pudusery P.O., Palakkad 2. The Branch Manager State Bank of Travencore, Pudussery, Palakkad Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K Seth, Advocate For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. K. Ramesh, Advocate For the Respondent no.2 : Nemo Pronounced on: 11th November, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Being aggrieved by order dated 14.9.2010 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacadu, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, State Commission) in First Appeal No.983 of 2004, Petitioner/O.P. No.1 has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act).
2. Alongwith it, an application seeking of delay of 120 days has been filed though as per office report there is delay of 133 days.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also gone through the record.
4. Grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought are reproduced are as under;
3. That the certified copy of the judgment was received in the concerned branch office of the petitioner on 13.10.2010 and thereafter the said branch office sought legal opinion of the attending advocate on the judgment and after receiving the same, all the relevant papers were forwarded to the competent authority at Regional Office, Ernakulam for the advice.
4. That the Regional Office of the petitioner Insurance Company forwarded the papers to their one of the panel advocates for seeking his opinion on the impugned order. The legal opinion of the said advocate was received at the Regional Office on 27.12.2010 advising for filing the Appeal against the order of the State Commission.
5. That however in view of the contradictory legal opinion about filing of the Revision Petition against the order of the Hon'ble State Commission and particularly in view that the issue of liability under the policy was involved, the papers were forwarded to Head Office, Technical (Legal), Consumer Forum Department, for seeking their advice and approval based on the opinion of their panel advocate advising to file Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission.
6. That the competent authority at Head Office gave approval for filing the Revision Petition against the order of the Hon'ble State Commission and accordingly all the set of papers were forwarded to the concerned office for forwarding the same to Delhi Regional Office which is authorized to file the Revision Petition before the Hon'ble National Commission.
7. That the Delhi Regional Office thereafter forwarded the entire set of papers to one of its panel advocates vide letter dated 07.04.2011 and thereafter the advocate prepared the Revision Petition and forwarded the same for the approval and signatures of the competent authority on the Petition vide its letter dated 28.04.2011 and immediately thereafter the Revision Petition after the signatures were returned to the advocate to the advocate for filing the same and the advocate accordingly filed the Revision Petition in the Registry of Hon'ble Commission.
8. That the delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition occurred because of the aforesaid administrative procedure and was neither intentional nor willful. It is in the interest of justice that the delay of 120 days in filing the Revision Petition may please be condoned.
5. Thus, as per above grounds, the certified copy of the judgment was received in the office of the petitioner on 13.10.2010 and legal opinion of the panel advocate was received on 27.12.2010 advising for filing the appeal against the order of the State Commission. Further, the plea of the petitioner is that in view of the contradictory legal opinion about filing of the revision petition, the papers were forwarded to Head Office for seeking their advice. The Head Office gave the approval and accordingly all set of papers were forwarded to the concerned office at Delhi Regional Office, which forwarded the papers to its panel advocate on 7.4.2011. Thereafter, the revision petition was filed on 12.5.2011.
6. No name of any official has been mentioned as to who has dealt with the case file from 27.12.2010 till 7.4.2011. Moreover, it is not stated as to who had given the contradictory opinions and what are the dates of those two opinions. The grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought are the usual grounds taken up by the Public Sector Undertakings, without giving any reasonable and justifiable explanation for long delay of about four months.
7. It is well settled that sufficient cause for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.
8. In Ram Lal and others 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.
9. 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.
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. Now, Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ;
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.
12. The observations made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, as per the application for condonation of delay no sufficient grounds are made out to condone the long delay of 120 days. It would be pertinent to mention here that consumer complaint was filed by respondent no.1, as far back as in the year 2001. Now, even after 12 years, respondent no.1, having decision of two consumer fora below in its favour, is being deprived of the fruits of the award.
13. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case where petitioner should be burdened with the cost for causing undue harassment as well as delay to the complainant. Consequently, the present revision petition being barred by limitation stand dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid to respondent no.1/complainant.
14. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of respondent no.1 in this Commission within four weeks from today.
15. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
\16. However, the cost shall be paid to respondent no.1, only after expiry of the period of appeal or revision preferred, if any.[
17. List for compliance on 13.12.2013.
.J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER (REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER Sg