Haryana

StateCommission

A/1371/2017

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANAND PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN OHRI

05 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1371 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 14.11.2017

Date of Decision: 05.12.2019

 

Future General Insurance Company Ltd., 3^rd Floor Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its Legal Officer, Mr.Sanddep Kumar, Future Generali India Insurance, 3^rd floor, Kailash Building, 26,  KG Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

…..Appellant

Versus

Anand Parkash S/o Ram Kumar R/o Main Bajar Old Post Officer Jhajjar Distt. Jhajjar.

                   …..Respondent

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

Present:              Shri Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Shri Mohit Rathee, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that complainant is owner of a tractor bearing registration No. HR-14K-2715, which was insured with the O.P.  On 22.03.2016, the tractor of complainant was stolen by some unknown persons.  On 26.03.2016, FIR was lodged.  He intimated the OP-insurance company and submitted the relevant documents, but, OP failed to make the payment despite repeated requests. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

2.      O.P. filed  reply controverting his averments.  The complainant registered the claim with the respondent on 25.03.2016 after delay of 3 days from the alleged theft i.e. dated 22.03.2016 and moreover, got lodged the FIR No.285 on 26.03.2016 after 4 days from the alleged theft.  The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The OP has not entitled to pay the insured amount and rightly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 02.11.2016.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.06.2017 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondent to make the payment of claim/insured declared value of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 22.3.2016 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to sub mission of necessary documents, signatures etc. with the respondent company required for transfer of R.C. etc. under a valid receipt duly signed by the respective parties.  The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  It is made clear that the respondent shall be bound to release the claim amount to the complainant within one month after submission of necessary documents etc. by the complainant with the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Sachin Ohri, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Mohit Rathee, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

7.      There was a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal.  Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 124 days wherein,  it is alleged that order dated 06.06.2017 was prepared on 12.06.2017, which was delivered on 13.06.2017.  The copy of the order was lost in the office of the appellant due to shifting of claim handling legal officer to some other company and copy of the order was found on 08.08.2017.  The case was sent to the technical team, who forwarded the case to senior legal officers for opinion. The case was sent to counsel at Chandigarh for his opinion and senior officers decided to file an appeal before this Commission. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

8.      Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay. File perused.

9.      It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that order dated 06.06.2017 was prepared on 12.06.2017, which was delivered on 13.06.2017.  It is further argued that the copy of the order was lost in the office of the appellant due to shifting and copy of the order was found on 08.08.2017.  It is further argued that the case was sent to the technical team, who forwarded the case to senior legal officers for opinion and thereafter senior officers decided to file an appeal before this Commission. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional and may be condoned.

10.    However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso 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 prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 312 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

11.    Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“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 rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court 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”.

 

12.       Even on merits,  the tractor was stolen during the subsistence of the policy.  Even, FIR has also been got lodged on 26.03.2016, which also clears that the vehicle was stolen. The delay of 3 days of lodging FIR is not intentional.  The O.P. repudiating the claim on some technical grounds, but, as per the opinion of Apex Court in some cases, the technicalities cannot be allowed to stand in the way of natural justice. Thus, it is clear that the complainant is entitled for insured declared value. This Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, Jhajjar.  There is deficiency in service on the part of appellant and reasonable amount of compensation has been granted by the learned District Forum.

13.       Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the complaint under appeal is badly time barred.  In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 124 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. We also do not find any illegality or fault in the finding given by the learned District Forum on merits. Appellant seems to have adopted a casual approach in filing the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed.

14.       Amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Anand Parkash against proper receipt and identification subject to decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

 

5th  December, 2019                 Ram Singh Chaudhary             T.P. S. Mann

                                                    Judicial Member                         President

 

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)