State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pyarey Lal vs U I I Co on 19 July, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2012/1988 ( Date of Filing : 10 Sep 2012 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Pyarey Lal a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. U I I Co a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 19 Jul 2018 Final Order / Judgement ORAL State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No. 1988 of 2012 Pyaray Lal s/o Gendan Lal, Vill. Rupapur, Varaipura, Post Bhandsar, Dist. Bareilly. ..Appellant. Versus 1- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 149, Civil Lines, Bareilly. 2- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, 149, Civil Lines, Bareilly. 3- M/s Brant Ford James Pvt. Ltd., 201, Civil Lines, Bareilly. ...Respondents. Present: Hon'ble Mr. Vijai Varma, Presiding Member. Hon'ble Mr. Govardhan Yadav, Member. Shri S.K. Srivastava for the appellant. Ms. Sumaiyyah Kidwai for the respondents. Date: 19.7.2018 JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member) Case called out. Counsel for the appellant Shri S.K. Srivastava and counsel for the respondent Ms. Sumaiyyah Kidwai present.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2008, passed by the District Forum-I, Bareilly in complaint case no.101 of 2007.
The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the appellant/complainant had purchased a tractor from the respondent/OP no.3 through loan from SBI. The tractor was insured with the OP no.1 which was valid from 14.5.2004 to 13.5.2005. On 1.3.2005, when the complainant was riding on the said tractor with the trolley and crossing the railway crossing near Abhaypur then a train passed from the side of the tractor resulting in heavy damages to the property of the complainant. The complainant lodged an FIR but nothing was done. The complainant pressed claim with the OP no.1 and also requested for replacement of the tractor but nothing was done, hence, he filed a complaint case before the Forum below wherein the OP no.1 & 2 submitted their WS mentioning therein that the trolley of the tractor was not (2) insured. Besides, at the time of the accident 20 bags paddy were loaded in the trolley and also 3 persons were sitting on the tractor and 2 persons on the trolley. Besides the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver Pyare Lal and a criminal case was lodged against the driver by the railway authorities. Since the trolley was not insured and tractor was being used for commercial purposes, therefore, the claim was repudiated. The ld. Forum thereafter, dismissed the complaint on 9.5.2008 as none appeared to press the complaint.
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed on 9.5.2008 that this appeal has been filed mainly on the grounds that the complaint has been dismissed as the complaint was not made aware of the date by his counsel. The ld. Forum, without appreciating the facts of the case has dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the Forum be directed to hear afresh the complainant after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
This appeal has been filed with delay and counsel for the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay. It transpires that the impugned order was passed on 9.5.2008 and it is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the counsel for the complainant did not inform him about the dismissal of the case by the Forum on 9.5.2008 and hence, the complainant could not file the appeal against it. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been mentioned that the complainant is an illiterate farmer and entrusted his file to his counsel for proper prosecution of his case and after filing he kept in regular contact with his counsel and the counsel kept assuring him and informed him false dates despite the fact that the case had been dismissed. On 7.12.2012, the complainant went to Forum to meet his counsel then he found that he was not available then he took the assistance of another counsel and when he inspected the file then he found that the case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9.5.2008 and it is only then that he moved an application for obtaining certified copy of the order and thereafter, has filed this appeal after getting the certified copy on 23.8.2012, hence, the delay in filing this appeal be condoned. Ld. counsel for the respondent argues that there is not much justification for filing this appeal with so much delay. It transpires that the impugned order was passed on (3) 9.5.2008 and it is not believable that the counsel will not be informing the complainant about the dismissal of the complaint if the complainant would have contacted his counsel. There is a delay of about 4 years and 3 months. A complainant is not only supposed to be keeping contact with his counsel but also is supposed to be aware of the orders passed in the complaint filed by him. Had the complainant taken care of finding what was happening in his case then he would have certainly come to know as to what orders were passed in the complaint. The grounds taken by the complainant that is counsel did not inform him correctly is not believable. It appears to be a ploy to make out a case for justifying the delay. The delay of about more than 4 years can not be justified on flimsy grounds and it clear that the complaint had been sleeping over his rights. The complainant has not only been not prosecuting the case in the Forum below as the complaint was dismissed for want of non-prosecution by the Forum below but he has utterly failed in filing the appeal in the right earnest. Therefore, we do not find sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Govaradhan Yadav) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.3 [HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav] MEMBER