State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nic vs Damoder Das Dixit on 13 April, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/391/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/12/2014 in Case No. C/129/2013 of District Mainpuri) 1. NIC Mainpuri ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Damoder das Dixit Kannouj ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Virendra Singh PRESIDENT For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2015 (Against the judgment/order dated 24-12-2014 in Complaint Case No. 129/2013 of the District Consumer Forum, Mainpuri) National Insurance Company Limited Through its Branch Manager Station Road Mainpuri District Mainpuri Rakesh Babu Dixit Authorized Representative National Insurance Company Limited Etawa Road By Pass Thana Baiber, District Mainpuri ...Appellants/Opposite Parties Vs. Damodar Das Dixit S/o Shri Nand Kishsore Dixit R/o Gram Saraygopal Post Prempur, Thana Chibramau District Kannauj ...Respondent/Opposite Party BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJ KAMAL GUPTA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Syed Haseen , Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Dated : 13-04-2015 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the judgment and order dated 24-12-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mainpuri in Complaint Case No. 129/2013 directing the appellants/opposite parties to pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of 79,189/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment within a period of one month. A sum of Rs.20,000/- has also been awarded towards compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation alongwith Rs.3,030/- towards surveyor's fees, on these grounds that if no claim bonus was claimed by the complainant at the time of taking the :2: insurance without disclosing the factum of earlier insurance company, the liability of enhanced premium to be paid by the insured to the insurer for Rs.2,071/- might have been arrived, which could have been deducted from the compensation to be awarded to the insured by the insurer wherein admittedly the insurance amount had to be paid by the insurer due to accident of the alleged vehicle.
This appeal is put up today for admission. We have heard learned Counsel for the both the parties and perused the entire record.
The impugned order was passed on 24-12-2014, the copy of which was received by the appellant on 13-01-2015 and the appeal is filed on 02-03-2015 which is apparently time barred. Though an application for delay condonation has been filed on record stating therein that for the facts and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying memo of appeal and its affidavit it is respectfully prayed that delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. There is no proper cause of delay in filing the present appeal has been furnished by the appellant.
We are not convinced with the above facts and these facts cannot be the basis of satisfaction of this Commission that there had been sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period stipulated in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for entertaining the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days for filing the appeal from the date of the order, because the law is very much clear in this regard. In various cases decided by the Hon'ble National Commission it is held that an application for condonation of delay should be decided keeping in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for filing the appeals and revisions in the consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the courts entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.
A party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention, is the law laid down by the Apex Court on 08-07-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 Balwant Singh (dead) versus Jagdish Singh and others.
In Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC :3: 361, it has been observed that 'it is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such fact as the court may regard as relevant'.
Recently the Apex Court in the Office of the Chief Post Master General and others versus Living Media India Ltd. and another decided on 24-02-2012in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7595-96 of 2011 was pleased to observe:
"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 every one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay."
In the light of the law laid down in the case of Ram Lal and others versus Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 SC 361 if we enquire the relevant facts even in limited scope of this case, apparently the sufficient cause is not proved before us, therefore, nothing further has to be done and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The delay in filing of this appeal cannot be condoned merely stating that the delay in filing :4: the present appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.
Hence without making any elaborate discussion on the merit of the case of the appellant, prima facie we do not find any sufficient cause in which the delay for filing the appeal should be condoned and therefore, the appeal being time barred is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the Registrar is directed to send the amount deposited as statutory deposit in this appeal by the appellant to the District Consumer Forum concerned alongwith interest accrued if any to meet out the decree.
( JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH ) PRESIDENT ( SMT. BAL KUMARI ) MEMBER ( RAJ KAMAL GUPTA ) MEMBER pnt.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Virendra Singh] PRESIDENT