National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 12 December, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1718 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 01/02/2012 in Complaint No. 199/2010 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. M/S. KIRAN GEMS PVT. LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT: FE-5011, BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI-400051 MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HUSE, P.B. NO. 7037, A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 12 Dec 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Appellant
:
Mr. Atul S. Umekar, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate
Mr. Latesh Fariya, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON : 12th DECEMBER 2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 01.02.2012, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. CC/199/2010, vide which, the said Commission dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, MA/90/2011 for condonation of huge delay of 2178 days in filing the consumer complaint and hence, the consumer complaint stood dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant M/s Kiran Gems Private Limited which are a company involved in the business of jewellery, obtained a Jewellers' Block Insurance Policy from the OP Insurance Company to cover the losses in their business activity. The said policy covered the stocks in possession of angadias, because the complainants dispatched gold/diamonds to its dealers in their normal course of business through angadias. On 06.12.2002, around 9 angadias who were carrying goods belonging to the complainants, were subjected to robbery by armed persons. A report was lodged with the Ahmedabad Western Railway Police Station and an FIR under section 395/397 etc. of the IPC was registered. An intimation about the incident was given to the OP insurance company, which appointed a surveyor for assessing the loss. The surveyor, in his report submitted on 30.09.2003, recommended payment of a sum of Rs.10,54,690/- to them. Despite that report, the Insurance Company appointed an investigator to report about the claim submitted by them. The investigator submitted report in January 2005, stating that diamonds worth Rs.1,35,000/- were recovered from some of the culprits. However, the complainants informed during trial before the court that the diamonds seized from the culprits did not belong to them. On the refusal of the Insurance Company to entertain their claim, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.35,15,014/- to them, which included the sum of Rs.20,15,015/- towards interest @18% p.a. on the claimed amount of Rs.15 lakh. In addition, a sum of Rs.5 lakh was demanded as compensation against mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Alongwith the consumer complaint, a miscellaneous application bearing no. MA/90/2011, was filed before the State Commission, saying that the complainants did not file the complaint earlier as they were under the bonafide belief that their claim would be considered favourably by the OP Insurance Company. They had also approached the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) to seek their intervention in the matter. The delay of 2178 days in filing the consumer complaint should, therefore, be condoned. It was also stated that the repudiation letter dated 06.02.2006 was not received by them and the said letter was fabricated by the Insurance Company later on, with malafide intention.
4. After considering the averments made by the complainants and hearing both the parties, the State Commission dismissed miscellaneous application No. MA/90/2011 and refused to condone the delay in filing the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.
5. There is a huge delay of 1722 days in filing the present appeal as well. The impugned order of the State Commission was passed on 01.02.2012, whereas the first appeal has been filed almost after 5 years, i.e., on 21.12.2016. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, in which it is stated that the impugned order dated 01.02.2012 was brought to their knowledge on 27.06.2016, because their Advocate failed to inform them about the same. The complainant tried to obtain a certified copy of the order and of the entire proceedings on 19.09.2016. Thereafter, they decided to challenge the said order and engaged the services of a counsel. According to the appellant/complainant, there is a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and the same should be condoned.
6. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant stated that because of the failure on the part of their Advocate to give intimation about the impugned order, they could not file the appeal in time. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted, however, that they had not made any complaint etc. against the said Advocate before the concerned authorities. In so far as the free copy of the impugned order was concerned, the same was sent by the State Commission at their old address, and the same was not received by them.
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP stated that there was no justification for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, because no cogent and convincing explanation had been furnished by the appellant/complainant for the huge delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel pointed out that there was abnormal delay of 2178 days in filing the consumer complaint as well. The impugned order of the State Commission, refusing to condone the said delay was valid in the eyes of law and should be upheld.
8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 01.02.2012, passed by the State Commission reveals that the said order was passed in the presence of Mr. Durgesh Singh, Advocate for the complainant. There was no reason, therefore, for the complainant to delay the filing of the appeal in question. The complainant has not been able to provide any explanation, as to why they did not proceed against their said Advocate, if according to them, he failed to give timely information to them about the impugned order. Moreover, the complainant is supposed to have knowledge and keep track of the proceedings pending before the State Commission. The inordinate delay of over four years in filing the appeal, has not been explained by giving any cogent and convincing reasons. Even after receiving the intimation from the Advocate, as per the version of the complainant itself, there was a further delay in filing the appeal, for which no satisfactory explanation has been put forward by the complainant. They have stated that when they handed over the papers to their Advocate for filing the appeal, the Diwali vacation had started. The said reason does not explain the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. We are supported in this contention by a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", [IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)], in which, it has been held that:-
"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."
10. The State Commission vide impugned order, did not find sufficient reasons to condone the huge delay of about 6 years in filing the consumer complaint before them. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down a period of 2 years only for filing a consumer complaint from the date, the cause of action has accrued to the complainant. The complainant has taken the plea that the repudiation letter dated 06.02.2006 was not received by them at all. This plea of the complainant cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination, because after filing the claim with the Insurance Company, they are supposed to be in touch with the office of the said Insurance Company in normal course. We have, therefore, no reason to differ with the order of the State Commission that there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay of 2178 days in filing the consumer complaint. It has been held in an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768]" that a consumer complaint filed beyond period of two years of the cause of action cannot be entertained, unless there are sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing the same.
11. Based on the discussion above, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation in filing the same, as well as by upholding the order of the State Commission, refusing to condone the huge delay of 2178 days in filing the complaint before them. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER