National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dariya vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 10 November, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1286 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 07/12/2011 in Appeal No. 1632/2011 of the State Commission NCDRC) 1. DARIYA S/o Sh.Rishal Singh, R/o Village Girawar, tehsil Meham Rohtak Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Opp D-Park Rohtak Through its Divisional Manager, Rohtak Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Shakti K. Pattanaik, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Gola, Advocate Dated : 10 Nov 2021 ORDER Taken up through video conferencing.
1. This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the State Commission's Order dated 07.12.2011 in appeal no. 1632 of 2011 arising out of the District Commission's Order dated 06.06.2011 in complaint no. 395 of 2009.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (the 'complainant') and for the respondent (the 'insurance co.').
3. The dispute relates to repudiation of an accident claim.
The District Commission had dismissed the complaint, essentially on ground that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and therefore the owner of the vehicle was not entitled to any insurance claim.
The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on limitation as well as on merit.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant argues that the complainant is a farmer, without wherewithal, and there were legitimate reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period of 30 days. The submission is that the State Commission has taken a severe view on the point of limitation and has refused to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal on limitation. The learned counsel has tried to elaborate upon the stringent circumstances of the complainant and on the facts and circumstances which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal and has sought to submit that the delay ought to have been condoned since sufficient cause to condone the delay was well forthcoming.
The learned counsel has further emphasized upon another aspect of the matter and has pointed out that after refusing to condone the delay, instead of dismissing the appeal on limitation, the State Commission has subsequently entered into the realm of the merits of the case on facts and law, both, and has concluded that the appeal should be dismissed on merit also. The submission is that the approach adopted by the State Commission is almost paradoxical, which has resulted in a cursory appraisal of merit after it had already made up its mind to dismiss the appeal on the point of limitation.
The learned counsel further argues that District Commission has erred in arriving at its findings that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and also that the State Commission has not even examined this issue though it was pivotal to the dispute in question.
5. In rebuttal learned counsel for the insurance co. argues that the District Commission had dismissed the complaint on merit and the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on limitation as well as on merit. The submission is that the District Commission has correctly determined that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and that the State Commission has concurred with the Order of the District Commission and the same can not be faulted with.
6. We have considered the rival arguments made at the bar and have perused the material on record including inter alia the District Commission's Order dated 06.06.2011, the State Commission's impugned Order dated 07.12.2011 and the petition.
7. A perusal of the State Commission's impugned Order shows that the appeal was filed with delay of 143 days beyond the prescribed limitation period of 30 days. The State Commission made its appraisal on the point of limitation and concluded that sufficient cause to condone the delay was not forthcoming and dismissed ("rejected") the application for condonation of delay.
The State Commission then, however, went on further to appraise the merits of the case, and, with a passing examination, determined that the appeal failed on merit as well.
As such the State Commission dismissed the appeal on limitation as well as on merit observing in its impugned Order ". . . As a sequel to our above discussion, this appeal is dismissed on both the counts i.e. limitation as well as merits in limini . . .".
8. We see reason to agree with the submission that if the State Commission was dismissing the application for condonation of delay, not finding sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the appeal could have been dismissed on limitation alone, and there was no necessity for the State Commission to enter into the merits of the case as well.
Additionally, if it still felt apt to venture into the merits of the case, then it should have made a thorough examination of the merits, as is the normally adopted wont in exercising appellate jurisdiction. We but note that the State Commission has given its findings with a skin-deep passing examination of the merits, as is apparent from a reading of the penultimate paragraph of its Order wherein the merits have been examined. For ready appreciation the said penultimate paragraph of the State Commission's impugned Order is reproduced below:
"Even on merit, there is no force in this appeal. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, complainant has sought the damages claim of his new Tavera vehicle bearing temporary No. HR-B(T)-9558, which met with an accident on 22.1.2009, during the currency of the insurance policy sold by the opposite party. However, the complaint was dismissed the District Forum only on the ground that Sh. Jeet Pal who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license for the commercial vehicle. In this regard, the District Forum has relied upon the case law titled "Sardari & others Vs. Sushil Kumar & Others reported in II(2008) CPJ21 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex court that where the driver was not holding a valid driving license, the owner was not entitled to any insurance claim. Taking strength from the above case supra, the compliant of the appellant/complainant was dismissed vide its impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal."
9. We note that the two principal issues germane to the merits of the case are, one, whether or not the driver of the insured vehicle was holding a valid driving licence, and, two, if not, whether the same was fatal to the insurance claim. The State Commission has not even attempted to examine the first issue i.e. whether or not the driver was holding a valid driving licence. It has straightaway hurried to the second issue, and, taking reference in the District Commission's Order has held that since the driver was not holding a valid driving licence the owner of the insured vehicle was not entitled to any insurance claim. However, the whole controversy emanates from the issue of whether or not the driver was holding a valid driving licence. And this issue inter alia requires examination of the facts in the light of the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As such we have no hesitation to note that the appraisal on merit is not upto the normal yardsticks required to be adopted while exercising appellate jurisdiction.
10. To sum up, we find that the State Commission, on dismissing the application for condonation of delay, could have dismissed the appeal on limitation itself, and not ventured into the arena of the merits of the case at all. Additionally, if it still found it apt to enter into the merits of the case, it should have examined the issues germane as per the normal wont required in appellate jurisdiction and not in a cursory or off the cuff manner and all the more not by altogether omitting to meaningfully address the issue over which the whole controversy revolves (i.e. whether or not the driver was holding a valid driving licence).
11. Be that as it is, we are of the opinion that in the specific facts and circumstances and specificities of the present case the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been better condoned and after making complete appraisal of the issues germane in the matter, on the facts and the law, both, an order on merit should have been passed.
12. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission is hereby condoned and the case is remanded back to the State Commission to hear the arguments and pronounce its considered judgment on merit with a fuller appraisal on facts and law both.
The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.12.2021.
13. As this is an old matter, we also find it appropriate to request the State Commission to make an endeavor to expedite the hearing of the matter and decide the same with dispatch. An endeavor to conclude and decide the appeal within a period of three months positively from the date fixed for appearance of the parties before the State Commission shall be highly appreciated.
14. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE MEMBER