State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harpinder Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 25 May, 2015
2nd ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Appl. No. 1429 of 2014
In/and
First Appeal No. 961 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 08.07.2014
Date of Decision: 25.05.2015
Harpinder Singh son of Dalip Singh resident of village Uppli, Tehsil and
District Sangrur, Punjab.
.....Appellants/complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited, Pilli Kothi, Thandi Sarak,
Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Manager.
2. Vipul MedCorp TPA Pvt. Limited SCI No. 98, First Floor,
Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its Manager.
3. Vipul Medcorp TPA Pvt. Limited, Pilot No. 208, Site No. 1,
Shankar Road Scheme, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi
110060 through its Managing Director.
...Respondents/opposite parties
Application for condonation of delay of
174 days
In
First Appeal against order dated
02.12.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate For respondent No. 1 : Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate For respondents No.2&3 : Ex-parte Misc. Appl. No.1429 of 2014 2 In/and First Appeal No. 961 of 2014 GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Order This appeal has been preferred by appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 02.12.2013 in C.C. No. 213 of 16.05.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. Misc. Application No. 1429 of 2014:-
2. Alongwith appeal, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by the appellant for condonation of delay of 174 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated in the application that the order was passed on 02.12.2013 and its copy was received on 16.12.2013 and the appeal was to be filed on 15.01.2014. But in the meantime, the son of the appellant was died on 14.02.2014, therefore, he was upset and could not file the appeal. Therefore, there is sufficient ground for condonation of delay and requested that delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.
3. Reply to the application for condonation of delay was filed by the OPs and stated that no steps were taken by the complainant to file the appeal upto 15.01.2014 and part of delay is unexplained, even the subsequent time of 5 months was also not properly explained. Therefore, this application is without merit and it be dismissed.
4. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
5. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that after passing of the order, the copy of the order was received by the appellant on 16.12.2013 and certainly the limitation to file the appeal is 30 days. It is required to file upto 15.01.2014. The only ground taken by the appellant for not filing the appeal within stipulated period is death of his son on 14.02.2014 but he has Misc. Appl. No.1429 of 2014 3 In/and First Appeal No. 961 of 2014 failed to give any explanation what efforts were made by him to file the appeal upto 15.01.2014 and what is the sufficient ground not to file the appeal from 15.01.2014 to 14.02.2014, the date of death of son of the applicant. Under the Act, the limitation is 30 days to file the appeal. In case it is filed late, then sufficient ground is required to be made and in case, no sufficient ground is made then the opposite party has got valuable right which cannot be taken away without any sufficient ground.
6. There is a judgment reported in case "Central Bank of India V. Ayodhya Prasad Awasthi" 1(2015) CPJ there was a delay of 202 days.
Hon'ble National Commission observed the specific periods have been prescribed for filing of appeal and revision petition under law to ensure that fruits of awards or decree are not unduly delayed to successful litigant. Cogent explanation is to be given in support of each request for condonation of delay. Petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily so as to constitute 'sufficient cause'. Delay not condoned and the application was dismissed.
7. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in case "Jagmal Vs Land Acquisition Collector & Others, 2009(2) RCR (Civil)-349 (P&H)"
that:-
"Proof of sufficient cause is condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay .............".
8. It was also held by the Hon'ble National Commission in "M/s Arihant Builders & Ors. Versus Gaurav Anand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.", 2012(4) CPR 487 (NC) that it was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Victor Albuquerque v. Saraswat Co-operation Bank Ltd.", AIR 1988 (Bom.) 346 that:-
"where the facts showing clear negligence of party during entire period of limitation and no sufficient cause sustained for delay in filing appeal, the delay cannot be condoned."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. Vs State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC) held after Misc. Appl. No.1429 of 2014 4 In/and First Appeal No. 961 of 2014 considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) as under:-
"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".
10. In view of the above discussion and judgments referred above, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of such a long delay, therefore, we do not see any merit in the application, the same is hereby dismissed.
MAIN CASE
11. In view of the order passed on the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which has been dismissed, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation and accordingly it is also dismissed barred by limitation.
12. The arguments in the application for condonation of delay were heard on 19.05.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
May 25, 2015. (JASBIR SINGH GILL)
RK MEMBER
(SURINDER PAL KAUR)
MEMBER
Misc. Appl. No.1429 of 2014 5
In/and
First Appeal No. 961 of 2014