Punjab

StateCommission

A/199/2018

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baljeet Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Mohan Lal Singhi

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.199 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution: 03.04.2018

                                                          Order Reserved  : 18.04.2018

                                                         Date of Decision :  25.04.2018

 

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., 5^th Floor, Tower 1, Steller IT Park, C-25, Noida through its Chief Manager.  

                                                                       ……Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Baljeet Kumar, aged about 32 years son of Satpal, resident of Zira Road, Street No.4, Dashmesh Nagar, Near Petrol Pump, Kot-Ise-Khan, District Moga.

                                                                 ……Respondent/Complainant

         

First Appeal against order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.

 

Quorum:-

          Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

          Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

 

Present:-

          For the appellant :         Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Advocate

           

 

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER

ORDER

                   The appellant/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP) has filed the present appeal against the order dated  12.07.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.18 of 2017 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Moga (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and OP was directed to pay Rs.1,88,620/- i.e. claim amount to complainant with interest @9% per annum from 08.02.2017 i.e. from the filing of the present complaint till realization. Further OP is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to  the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection At.

M.A. No.1000 of 2018 (Delay)

                   Appellant/Opposite Party has filed an application to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated in the application that the order was passed on 12.07.2017 and the same was received by the appellant in the first week of August 2017. The order was sent to the Head Office of the appellant for consideration where it was decided to pay the awarded amount to the complainant and as such t he appellant issued a letter dated 23.08.2017 to  the complainant to submit the original documents i.e. Bills, Hospital Documents etc. as per Section 10(g) of the terms and conditions of the policy contract but the complainant has not submitted the same with  the appellant instead the complainant filed execution application with  the District Forum for the compliance of the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 where the appellant had submitted the objections and requested the District Forum to direct the complainant to submit the original documents with the appellant but the District Forum also dismissed the objections of the appellant vide order dated 12.02.2018 and further advised to file an appeal before the State Commission, if the appellant feels aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2017. After that all the documents were sent to the counsel in the 2^nd week of March 2018 who prepared and filed appeal on behalf of the appellant. Due to the advice of the counsel to file the objections on the execution proceedings instead of appeal, the appeal could not be filed before the Hon’ble Commission immediately after the impugned award. Further submitted that the appellant tenders its unconditional apology before this Commission for not filing this appeal within limitation period with a prayer to kindly condone the delay of 220 days in filing the present appeal in the interest of justice.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. 

4.                The Advocate knew about the law of limitation, therefore, ground taken in the application that the counsel advised to file the objections on the execution application in the District Forum rather than to go for appeal in the State Commission is not in order. As per Consumer Protection Act 1986 “Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed”.

5.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Kamlesh Babu and Ors. Vs Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others”, 2008(3) The Punjab Law Reporter-455, while interpreting and explaining the scope of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, observed as follows:-

 

“It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act casts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence”.

6.                The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs. Vs State of A.P. & Others”, 2011 (2) RCR Civil-880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para-26(relevant portion) observed 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”.

 

7.                Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Oriental Arora Chemical Industries Limited Vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation”, (2010) 5 SCC-459 observed as follows:-

 

“We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time”.

8.                Hon’ble National Commission in its recent decision in case “A.V. Sreedharan Vs. M.V. Narayanan”, CPJ 2012 684 (NC) held that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer dispute will get defeated if the application is entertained when no cogent reason is given in the application for condonation of delay. 

9.                In view of the above discussion and the law referred to above, it is clear that the applicant has failed to set-up sufficient cause to condone the delay, therefore, we do not find any merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.

MAIN APPEAL

 

10.              Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, First Appeal No. 199 of 2018 also stands dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.

 

11.              The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal.  This amount along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court for release of the above amounts and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.

12.              Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

                                                                (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                 PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                                  

                                                                  (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

                                                                                    MEMBER

April, 25   2018

PK/-