State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assuaance Co. Ltd. vs Sheela Foam Ltd. on 27 June, 2024
FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:21.06.2024
Date of hearing : 27.06.2024
Date of Decision : 27.06.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 439/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-II
CORE-1, 10TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR
LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE
DELHI-110092
(Through Mr. Salil Paul & Sahil Paul, Advocates
Email: [email protected]
Mob. 9810449118)
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHEELA FOAM LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFCIE AT
C-55, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110092
....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Salil Paul, counsel for the appellant. (Email:
[email protected] and Mobile No. 9810449118)
Mr. Dwijesh Kapila along with Mr. Mukesh Seju, counsel
for the respondent. (Email: [email protected]
& [email protected] and Mobile No.
9815605300)
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DISMISSED Page 1 of 10
FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024
1.The present appeal has been filed on 21.06.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.167/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- IX (East District), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092 wherein the complaint was allowed.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1801/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Ms. Prabha Malhotra, Manager of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
3. We have given considerable thought to the submissions put forth by either of the parties and carefully perused the record
4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.167/2020.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 3 to 14 of the application read as under:
"3. That the Corporate Legal & Consumer Forum, Mumbai of the Appellant received the Certified Copy of the Judgment/Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi on 15.04.2024.
4. That Dealing Counsel of the Appellant Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi vide his Opinion dated 15.04.2024 had opined to the Delhi Regional Office II of the Appellant that it is a fit case to file a First Appeal against the Judgment/Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 167 of 2020 titled 'Sheela Foam Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd'.
5. Thereafter, the Delhi Regional Office II of the Appellant sent the letter dated 29.04.2024 along with DISMISSED Page 2 of 10 FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024 the Docket File to the Head Office at Mumbai of the Appellant for Approval to file a First Appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
6. That on 22.05.2024, the Head Office at Mumbai of the Appellant after going through the Docket File pertaining to the present matter and also the legal opinion; thereby advised the Delhi Regional Office - II of the Appellant to contact Salil Paul, Advocate for assigning the present matter to file a First Appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
7. Thereupon the Delhi Regional Office - II of the Appellant - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 24.05.2024 had appointed Salil Paul, Advocate for filing the First Appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
8. Later, the Delhi Regional Office II of the Appellant sent the captioned Docket file to the Salil Paul, Advocate on 28.05.2024 along with the Certified Copy of the Judgment/Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi with the recommendation to prepare the First Appeal and file it before the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
9. That the Counsel for the Appellant for the preparation of the present First Appeal before this Hon'ble Commission requested to the Appellant for the supply certain missing documents i.e. Written Arguments filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi etc.
10. That the Delhi Regional Office - II of the Appellant had send certain missing documents i.e. Written Arguments filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party before DISMISSED Page 3 of 10 FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi etc. on 29.05.2024.
11. That the Counsel of the Appellant had taken some time to prepare the First Appeal to be filed Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, as the Documents were running into thousands of pages and the matter was quite intricate and technical.
12. In the meantime, the Counsel of the Appellant asked the Delhi Regional Office - II to prepare a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) of the amount i.e. 50% Ordered to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant before the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the said Office of the Appellant got prepared a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) for an amount of Rs. 15,75,25,486/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Seventy Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred And Eighty Six Only) favouring the 'Registrar, State Commission Delhi.
13. Thereafter, on the receipt of the draft of Rs. 15,75,25,486/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Seventy Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred And Eighty Six Only) favouring the 'Registrar, State Commission Delhi, the Counsel of the Appellant prepared and got signed the First Appeal from the officer of the Appellant - New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Regional Office - II.
14. That the Counsel for the Appellant - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present First Appeal along with Documents before the Registry of this Hon'ble Commission on 21.06.2024."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
41. "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a DISMISSED Page 4 of 10 FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024 period of forty-five 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 forty-five 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 Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty percent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 11.03.2024 and the present appeal was filed on 21.06.2024 i.e. after a delay of 57 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 DISMISSED Page 5 of 10 FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024 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."
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 DISMISSED Page 6 of 10 FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024 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.
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 11.03.2024 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 25.04.2024. However, the reasons stated for the delay are that the Corporate Legal & Consumer Forum, Mumbai of the appellant received the certified copy of impugned order on 15.04.2024; Mr. Abhishek Kumar, counsel for the appellant before the District Commission has opined to the Delhi Regional Office-II on DISMISSED Page 7 of 10 FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024 15.04.2024 to file the appeal; thereafter the Delhi Regional Office-II of the appellant sent a letter dated 29.04.2024 along with the Docket File to the Head Office at Mumbai of the appellant for approval to file the appeal that advised the Delhi Regional Office-II of the appellant on 22.05.2024 to contact Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate for assigning the matter to file the appeal; thereafter the Delhi Regional Office-II of the appellant had appointed on 24.05.2024 Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate to file the appeal; thereafter Docket file along with certified copy of impugned order was sent to Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate on 28.05.2024; after perusing the same, Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate had requested to the appellant to supply certain missing documents i.e. written arguments filed by appellant/opposite party before the District Commission; thereafter the same was provided on 29.05.2024 to Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate; thereafter counsel for the appellant taken some time to prepare the appeal; in the meantime counsel for the appellant asked the Delhi Regional Office-II to prepare FDR and upon receipt of FDR, the appeal was prepared and got signed and filed.
13. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order mentions Delhi address of the applicant/appellant/opposite party. It has nowhere been averred as to the date when Delhi office has received the impugned order before it was dispatched to their Mumbai office.
14. It is an admitted fact that the Corporate Legal & Consumer Forum, Mumbai of the appellant received the certified copy of impugned order on 15.04.2024. Even if we consider that the appellant has received the certified copy of the impugned order on 15.04.2024, in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 30.05.2024. Still there is unexplained delay of 22 days in filing the appeal
15. Additionally, the appellant's sole justification in the aforementioned application was that the delay in filing the Appeal is Procedural DISMISSED Page 8 of 10 FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024 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 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 45 days from the date of impugned judgment.
DISMISSED Page 9 of 10FA/439/2024 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA FOAM LTD. DOD:27.06.2024
17. Therefore, the application (IA-1801/2024) filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed for the above reasons.
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 27.06.2024.
DISMISSED Page 10 of 10