Haryana

StateCommission

A/686/2017

HDFC STD.LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJAIB SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No  :        686 of 2017

Date of Institution:       06.06.2017

Date of Decision :        02.08.2017

 

 

 

1.      The Branch Manager/Incharge, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited (now known as HDFC Life) 1^st Floor, Classic Auto Care Shop, Dabwali, Sangwan Chowk, Opposite Sharma Petrol Pump, Sirsa.

2.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited (now known as HDFC Life) Corporate & Registered Office: Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-40011, through its Officer Incharge/Authorized Person.

          Appellants No.1 and 2 through authorized signatory Sh. Amit Khanna, HDFC Life, SCO No.148-150-151, Sector 43B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

Ajaib Singh son of Jang Singh, resident of House No.4,Village Taruana (315), Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Ms. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Sh. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for appellant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

          By filing the present appeal, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) have challenged the order dated December 08^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed to pay the sum assured alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization after deducting Rs.21,182.32 (already paid) to the complainant on account of death of Smt. Veerpal Kaur-life assured.

2.      The Insurance Company has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 150 days delay in filing the appeal. The grounds taken in the application are as under:-

“2.     That in the instant case, appellants were not served and an ex parte order has been passed.  Even the order passed by learned District Forum was also not served upon the appellants and it is only in the third week of April, 2017, it came to light that some order against the appellants, has been passed and that too, when the complainant approached some official of the appellants and upon enquiry, it transpired that the impugned order has been passed.

3.      That forthwith, after obtaining the requisite sanctions, demand draft for filing the appeal was prepared and further local counsels were contacted and by applying certified copy of the order, the same was obtained and received by the opposite party’s Chandigarh Office for filing of the appeal and forthwith handed over to the undersigned on May 22^nd, 2017.”

 

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Insurance Company.

4.      A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’), for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

5.      It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

7.      In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

8.      Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012(2) CPC 3 (SC)–Anshul Aggarwal  Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority  observed as under:-

“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 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”.

 

9.      In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

10.    In the case in hand, the ground taken in the application is manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 150 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

11.    Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal.  Smt. Veerpal, wife of the complainant purchased insurance policy from the Insurance Company.  The sum assured was Rs.2,50,000/-.  She died on October 17^th, 2015.  The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim only on the ground that income and occupation of Smt. Veerpal was found to be false.  The Insurance Company did not give any reply to the legal notice dated May 23^rd, 2016 of the complainant.  Despite service, the Insurance Company opted to proceed ex parte before the District Forum. The Insurance Company did not justify the repudiation of claim.   Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on both the grounds, that is, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.   

 

 

Announced 02.08.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K