Haryana

StateCommission

A/953/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIMLA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

19 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.953 of 2015

Date of Institution: 05.03.2014 and 29.10.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 19.05.2016

 

1.      Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,  through its authorized signatory 570, Rectifier House, Naigaum crossroad, Wadala, (W) Mumbai 400031.

2.      Reliance Gen Insurance Company Ltd, SCO 145-146, Top floor Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Bimla Devi, W/o Om Parkash

2.      Om Parkash S/o Sh.Mangat Ram, House No.12/91, Farm colony, CCS, HAU, Hissar.

3.      Oriental Bank of Commerce, Red square Market, Railway Road Hissar.

4.      Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2^nd Floor,Rachna Building, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate counsel for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainants that after the death of their 24 years old  son they filed complaint for compensation which was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”) vide impugned order dated 25.11.2013  with following directions:-

“We allow this complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to satisfy the whole outstanding loan amount of the account of Sanjay Kumar (deceased) and further direct opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the complainants for litigation expenses.”

It was alleged by the complainants that their son Sanjay was studying at M.M. Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Mullana. He obtained education loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from opposite party (O.P.). No.1 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 2004. O.P.No.1 obtained personal accidental policy  on the life of borrowers  of the bank including complainants’ son Sanjay Kumar from O.P.No.2 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vide policy No.1301372914100008 covering the risk of accidental death or permanent disability which was up to Rs.15/- lacs or outstanding loan whichever was less.  In case of death  O.P.No.2 was to pay 100% outstanding loan amount to O.P.No.1.  Unfortunately their son died in an accident on 06.07.2007.  A criminal case was registered for the offence punishable under sections 283/337/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short “IPC”) at P.S.Mullana vide FIR No.113 dated  06.07.2007. When they informed O.P.No.1 about his death claim form was handed over to them and were asked to complete all the formalities. They submitted all the relevant papers with O.P.No.1, but, it started pressurising them to deposit the outstanding loan.  Ultimately they informed that insurance company had rejected their claim because information about death was not given within stipulated time i.e. one calendar month.  O.P.No.1 never informed them about any such instructions and did not inform even verbally.  They also asked O.P.No.1 to give number of insurance policy etc., but, without any result. They also moved an application for condonation of delay regarding information to be given about death. Their claim was repudiated without any reasonable cause.  O.Ps. be directed to clear the amount outstanding in the loan account of their son Sanjay Kumar (since deceased) and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- qua mental harassment etc.

2.      In reply O.P.No.1 and 3 filed joint reply admitting loan and issuance of insurance policy.   They did not deny the disbursement of loan and obtaining insurance cover but alleged that all the documents were sent to O.P.No.2 for further action because it was bound to make payment due to death of Sanjay Kumar and it be directed to make the payment of that amount.

3       O.P.NO.2 filed separate reply and alleged that complainants were not having any contract with it. The agreement was in between O.P.Nos.1 and 3 and insurance company. They did not submit any document  in time, so it cannot be alleged that there was any deficiency in service on it’s part.  They did not suffer in any manner due to it’s act and conduct.  It was answerable to O.P.No.1 regarding claim.  Objections about locus standi, estopple, accruing cause of action, concealing true facts, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      Alongwith appeal an application was filed  by appellant for condonation of delay, which comes to 663 days as per office, but, appellant alleged 60 days.  Initially the appeal was filed on 05.03.2014 against the impugned order dated 25.11.2013 which was returned for want of duly attested affidavits, copies of complaint and written statement.    Appellant was directed to re-submit the appeal on or before 19.03.2014, but, it was re-submitted on 29.10.2015.

5.      It is alleged in the application that copy of impugned order  dated 25.11.2013 was prepared on 04.12.2013 which was received by the clerk of it’s counsel and information was provided on 25.12.2013. The delay was due to the office of counsel. The appeal could have been filed by 04.01.2014, but, for recommendation file was  sent to Delhi office and ultimately to Mumbai, which was received on 25.02.2015 (as in para No.8 of application). Thereafter appeal was filed on 05.03.2014 and there was delay for 60 days which was bonafide and be condoned keeping in view the opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan (SC), 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 119 and opinion of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana, High Court expressed in Haryana Power General Corporation Ltd and others Vs.Sudesh Mitter and others, RSA No.4106 of 2004, decided on March 15, 2012 (as mentioned in the application).

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above there was delay of only 60 days in filing appeal. The delay was not intentional and same may be condoned keeping in view the opinion expressed in aforesaid case laws.

8.      This argument is of no avail.  Initially the complaint was filed on 05.03.2014 and was returned to re-submit on or before 19.03.2014 after removing the objection i.e. supply of attested copies, as mentioned above.  Instead of re-submitting the file within stipulated time, the appellants re-submitted this file on 29.10.2015 i.e. after more than one year of the fixed date. As per objection, appellant was only supposed to file attested affidavit, copies of complaint and written statement, but, it did not bother to remove this objection within such  a short time.  Copies of complaint and written statement were already with it. Even alongwith this appeal the appellants have not filed the copy of written statement/reply filed by O.P. Nos.1 to 3/respondent Nos.2 to 4. It shows that the appellant is taking up this matter casually. So it cannot be presumed that there is delay of only 60 days rather the delay is of 663 days.

9.      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 rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

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 Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“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 S.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 bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 held as under;

“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.”       

    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”.

10.    Taking into consideration the pleas raised by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay and the settled principle of law, it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 663 days in filing of the appeal. When the party is so much careless, the delay cannot be condoned, so the application filed condonation of delay is dismissed and appeal is also dismissed as time barred.

11.       The statutory amount of Rs.2500/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

May 19th, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

 

S.K.