Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1185/2013

BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUNA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 07.02.2017

 

First Appeal-1185/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 12.06.2013 passed by the District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in complaint case No. 460/10)

 

 

       In the Matter of:

               

          M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE

          COMPANY LIMITED

          THROUGH CHAIRMAN/MD

          4^TH & 5^TH FLOOR, MAHATTA TOWERS,

          54, B-BLOCK, COMMERCIALL CENTRE,

          JANAK URI, NEW DELHI-110048

 

          ALSO AT:

 

          GL PLAZA AIRPORT ROAD,

          YERAWADA, PUNE-411006

……Appellant                                         Versus   SMT. ARUNA RANI R/O 2/373, AMBEDKAR NAGAR P.S.-DAKSHIN PURI EXTENSION BLOCK NO.2 DELHI- 110 006                                                                                   …….Respondents

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.         The present appeal is filed against the order dated 12.06.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VIi, Sheikh Sarai in complaint case No. 460/10.

2.         Along with this appeal the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay, seeking condonation of delay of 93 days. The grounds on which the condonation of delay has been sought by the appellant is mentioned in paras- 2 to 9 of the application.

3.         Notice was issued to the respondent/complainant who strongly opposed the application by filing a reply.

4.         It is admitted by the appellant in his application that copy of the impugned order dated 12.6.13 which was dispatched by the district Forum on 1.7.13 was received by the appellant on 26.7.13. However the version of the appellant that after receiving the copy of the impugned order, the concerned branch office intimated the order to the Zonal Legal manager of the company for taking up the matter with the Head office of the appellant. The said head office of the appellant company then asked the branch office to collect the complete pleading file of the case from the Counsel who handled the case before the District Forum alongwith his opinion. Thereafter, the order of the District Forum was sent to the Head Office of the appellant and the competent authority at Head Office of the company decided to prefer the appeal before this Commission on 12.08.13 and Counsel was appointed on 14.08.13 to draft the appeal. Thereafter, in para No. 5 it is mentioned that the said Counsel intimated on 4.9.13 that the case file has been misplaced and he is not able to find the said file. After received this information, the Zonal Legal manager of the appellant requested the present Counsel on 5.9.13 to get the certified copies of required documents from the District Forum for drafting the appeal. Counsel for the appellant had got the certified copies of the same on 12.9.13 and send the same to the office of the appellant on 16.9.13. After that appellant handed over the case file to the present Counsel on 24.9.13 for drafting the appeal. The present Counsel drafted the appeal on 1.10.13 and the appeal was filed on 7.11.13 with a delay of 93 days.

5.         We have carefully gone through the application and find that appellant has failed to file evidence of any kind i.e. correspondence letter, e-mail or any other document related to the averments made in his application. Nowhere, the name of the Zonal Officer is mentioned. Neither, the name of the Counsel is mentioned who earlier lost the case file and neither the name of the officer of the Head office of the company is mentioned. Further, the appellant has wrongly calculated the delay as 93 days from the date of order passed and 34 days from the date of knowledge of the order, whereas according to the facts, the correct period of delay is 113 days from the date of order passed and 74 days from the date of knowledge of the appellant. The only submissions made by the appellant is only departmental procedure which is also not acceptable as department has miserably failed to provide any sufficient reason to consider such a long delay.

6.         It is well settled that “sufficient cause as envisaged under section 5 of the Limitation Act is a question of fact in each case ”.

                                        

7.         In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.”, II (2012) SLT 312 wherein it was held by the Apex Court as under:

            “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 red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitments. 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. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning the 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”.

8.         In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 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”.

9.         Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down as under:

                “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of which is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence”.

10.       Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2013(1) CCC 910(NS) : IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held 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 matter and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated it this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras.”

11.       Observations made by Apext court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12.       Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bona fides is imputable to the appellants/OP. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the long delay of 113 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay under these circumstances is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

13.       A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

            File be consigned to record room.           

            (Justice Veena Birbal))

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member