State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Harpreet Singh on 18 September, 2023
FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:04.08.2023
Date of hearing : 18.08.2023
Date of Decision : 18.09.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO. 384/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
2E, JHANDEWALAN
NEW DELHI-110055
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
MR. HARPREET SINGH
S/O MR. CHARANJIT SINGH
R/O M-39, A-B, 2ND FLOOR
MALVIYA NAGAR
NEW DELHI-110017
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Sameer Kumar Tiwary, counsel for the appellant.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 04.08.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 vide which Complaint Case No.88/2019 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi- 110006.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1776/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Ms. Sarabjeet Oberoi, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
DISMISSED Page 1 of 7FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023
3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.88/2019.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 3 to 5 of the application read as follows:
"3. That it is submitted that the said order was passed on 15.05.2023 and the copy of the same was received on 23/05/2023.
4. That due to the recently concluded the Lok Adalat in the month of May, the present case file was tagged with some other files and could not be traced. It is submitted that the file of the present case was recently traced and then only formalities of assigning the file and preparation of statutory deposit was done.
5. That the aforesaid cumulative affect caused a delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-
"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
[Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees twenty-five thousand, whichever is less]"DISMISSED Page 2 of 7
FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 15.05.2023 and the present appeal was filed on 04.08.2023 i.e. after a delay of 51 days.
8. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause"
from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."DISMISSED Page 3 of 7
FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023
9. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under:-
"12. .........we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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 the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
10. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054- 2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of PopatBahiruGoverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.DISMISSED Page 4 of 7
FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023
11. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
12. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 15.05.2023 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 14.06.2023. The reasons stated for the delay that copy of impugned order was received by the appellant on 23.05.2023; due to recently concluded Lok Adalat in May, the file of present matter was tagged with some other files and could not be traced and after tracing the same, formalities of assigning the file and preparation of statutory deposit was done to file the appeal, seem fictitious.
13. Moreover, the appellant has not mentioned the date when they have applied for certified copy. A perusal of record reveals that the District Forum has dispatched the copy of impugned order vide diary no. 229-230 dated 16.05.2023. Copy of impugned order was dispatched vide consignment no. ED29238021IN by the District Forum in envelop and received by the appellant on 19.05.2023 as per envelope filed on page 22. Further, the appellant has averred in para 3 of the application that they have received the copy on 23.05.2023. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the copy of the impugned order on 23.05.2023, in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 22.06.2023. Thus, still there is unexplained delay of 43 days in filing the appeal for which sufficient/cogent reasons have not been given. Even the date of DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023 Lok Adalat in May 2023 has not been mentioned. As per our information, it was held on 13.05.2023. It is not even mentioned as to the specific date file was traced and by whom. Name of the official/officer who traced the file has been withheld and his/her affidavit has also not been filed.
14. However, there are no cogent reasons given by the Appellant to explain as to why it did not take immediate steps even after receiving the copy of the impugned order. Further, no document and no specific dates have been furnished by the Appellant to prove the contention as averred in the application. The Appellant has failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the pronouncement of the impugned order.
15. Additionally, the Appellant's sole justification in the aforementioned application was that the delay in filing the Appeal is Procedural delay. To this argument of the Appellant, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as under:
"12. .......The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties DISMISSED Page 6 of 7 FA/384/2023 NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. VS. MR. HARPREET SINGH DOD: 18.09.2023 with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
16. Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Appellant for the delay except inculpating the government lengthy approval procedures. According to us, the Appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent sufficient reasons to condone such delay. As a result, it is abundantly clear from the above that the Appellant was moving at its own pace unmindful that the prescribed period to file an appeal is 30 days from the date of impugned judgment.
17. Therefore, the application (IA-1776/2023) filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
18. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
19. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 18.09.2023.
DISMISSED Page 7 of 7