State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Co. ... vs Jang Singh on 12 September, 2013
FIRST ADDITONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No.2557 of 2012
In/and
First Appeal No.1656 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 19.12.2012.
Date of Decision: 12.09.2013.
1. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office at
2nd Floor, Dare House, 2nd NSC Bose Road, Chennai, through
its Chairman/M.D.
2. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its
Branch Office at K.L. Plaza, Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines,
opposite DIG Residence, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, through
its Branch Manager.
(Both through Sh. Abhilash Chander, Asstt. Manager Legal,
Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Metro Pillar
No.81, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi).
.....Applicants/Appellants.
Versus
Jang Singh S/o Sh. Punjab Singh, R/o Village Dera Mir Miran, District
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
...Respondents.
Application for condonation of delay of
167 (alleged) days
In/And
First Appeal No.1656 of 2012 against the
order dated 14.06.2012 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
- -----------------------------
Present:- Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for the applicants/appellants.
Sh. U.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
Misc. Appl. No.2557 of 2012 2In/and First Appeal No.1656 of 2012 INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, applicants/appellants (In short, "the applicants") have filed this application for condonation of delay of 167 (alleged) days in filing the present appeal.
2. It was submitted by the applicants that the copy of the order dated 14.06.2012 was delivered on 04.07.2012 to the counsel for the applicants, who further sent the same to the local office of the applicants at Ludhiana. Thereafter, the case was sent to Regional Office at New Delhi for taking a decision regarding filing the appeal. The file has to go through many channels before the approval could be granted to file the appeal. After receipt of approval, the same was sent to the counsel for filing the appeal and in this process, the delay of 167 days occurred. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate and it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the averments made in the application are wrong and misleading. The applicants have filed the present appeal with delay with malafide intention, to harass the respondent and to further delay the payment of the awarded amount to the respondent. Such a long delay of 166 days in filing the appeal cannot occur even in the proper process or channel. The application is the misuse of the process of law and it was prayed that the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Misc. Appl. No.2557 of 2012 3
In/and First Appeal No.1656 of 2012
5. The only ground taken for condonation of delay by the applicants is that the copy of the impugned order was delivered to the counsel for the applicants on 04.07.2012, who further sent the same to the local office of the applicants at Ludhiana. Thereafter, the case was forwarded to Regional Office at New Delhi for taking a decision and the file has to go through many channels before the approval could be granted.
6. The above ground taken by the applicants is not tenable and the application is vague and does not disclose sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. The applicant company is having business all over the country and being a multinational insurance company, it has employed thousands of employees and they can look after the cases. No explanation about the delay has been given in the application and vague reasoning has been given. There is no such detail as to when the copy of the order was sent to the local office of the applicants at Ludhiana and when it was sent to the Regional Office at New Delhi for taking decision to file the appeal and when it was received and when the approval was received and when the appeal was prepared? Simply mentioning the delay 167 days is not sufficient to condone the delay. Even otherwise, taking of legal opinion or complete other procedural formalities in the modern age of telecommunication do not take a long time and the same can be obtained in a short span of time and the plea of the applicants is not tenable. Moreover, the Govt. undertakings or the insurance companies, like the applicants are supposed to be more vigilant in such like matters and no benefit of procedural formalities can be given to the applicants.
Misc. Appl. No.2557 of 2012 4
In/and First Appeal No.1656 of 2012
7. The applicants have not even mentioned the correct figure of days of delay in the application. As per the applicants, the copy of order was received by their counsel on 04.07.2012 and the limitation to file the appeal was upto 02.08.2012, whereas the appeal was filed on 19.12.2012 i.e. after a delay of 138 days. The applicants in the application have relied upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "N.Bala Krishanan Vs Krishnamurthy", AIR 1998 (SC)-3222, but the copy of the citation has not been attached. The above authority of the Hon'ble Supreme pertains to the year 1998, whereas the law on the point of delay has undergone a sea change. With the passage of time, the view held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court kept on changing as per the facts and circumstances of the case and finding that casual approach is being taken by the departments, insurance companies and the banks etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court started tightening the noose and explaining the rigorous law of limitation and in case "Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others", 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-
"It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence".
8. In another case "Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. Vs State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed as follows:- Misc. Appl. No.2557 of 2012 5
In/and First Appeal No.1656 of 2012 "Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly".
9. Hon'ble National Commission in case "Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs DAC Research and Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd.", 2009(1) Consumer Law Today-532, observed that law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence for relaxation of time limit for a Government department and observed in Para-5 (relevant portion) as follows:-
"Law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence in time limit for relaxation of time limits for a Government Department, especially, when a right has been created in favour of one of the parties".
10. The Hon'ble National Commission in another case "HUDA Vs Supreme System", II (2011) CPJ-70(NC), observed as follows:-
"In the present case, the inordinate delay of 107 days cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause. The only reason Misc. Appl. No.2557 of 2012 6 In/and First Appeal No.1656 of 2012 given in the application is that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to administrative reasons. Petitioner has not shown any cause much less a sufficient cause for condoning the delay".
11. In a recent case "DLF Home Developers Limited & Ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors.", 2013 (3) CLT-404 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission relying upon so many authorities, reproduced the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-17 and of the Hon'ble National Commission in Para-18 observed as follows:-
17. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", IV (2011) CPJ-63 (NC) 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 the 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."
18. This Commission in Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs Vasankumar H. Khandelwal and Anr., Revision Petition ANo.1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012 has held:
"that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and in case of some expert evidence is required to be led, then within 150 days. The said Bench dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was delayed by 104 days."Misc. Appl. No.2557 of 2012 7
In/and First Appeal No.1656 of 2012
12. In view of the above discussion, the application filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. Main Case
13. As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the appeal i.e. F.A. No.1656 of 2012 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. The applicants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the applicants.
15. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the applicants to the respondent/complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
16. The arguments in the application were heard on 06.09.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member September 12, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)