1.            The present Revision Petitioner has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the interim Order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in M.A. No. 271 of 2015 in First Appeal No. 169 of 2015, whereby the State Commission has condoned the delay in filing the Appeal.

2.            Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the Complaint are that Late Bihari Lal, father of the Petitioner/Complainant, had obtained Life Insurance Policy No. 4544049 through Insurance Advisor of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP Insurance Company) after depositing cash of ₹41,000/- alongwith Application Form on 1.12.2010.  The Petitioner/Complainant was appointed nominee in the said Policy.  It was stated that as per terms of the Policy, Policy Holder had to deposit four instalments of ₹41,000/- each in a year for five years and in case of death of Policy holder, the nominee appointed by the Policy Holder was to get amount of 1st Year premium multiplied by 7, i.e., ₹1,64,000/- X 7 = ₹11,48,000/- claim amount.  It is stated that unfortunately on 18.01.2011, the insured, his father, expired.  On 20.01.2011, the Petitioner received a letter alongwith cheque bearing No. 918764 dated 20.01.2011 amounting to ₹41,000/- from the OP Insurance Company mentioning ‘pay out reason – initial deposit cancelled as per request.’  It is alleged by the Petitioner that neither his father nor has he requested for cancellation of the Policy despite that the OP Insurance Company cancelled the policy in order to avoid the liability to pay the sum insured.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company the Petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Muktsar. 

3.            Despite Notice being issued to the Opposite Parties, none appeared on their behalf before the District Forum.  The District Forum relying upon version of the Complainant vide Order dated 16.05.2011 allowed the Complaint exparte and directed the OP Insurance Company to pay ₹11,48,000/- to the Petitioner within 2 months failing which it shall carry interest @7 ½ % p.a. from the date of Order till realization.

4.            Being aggrieved, the OP Insurance Company preferred an Appeal with Application for condonation of delay of 1327 in filing the Appeal before the State Commission. 

5.            Learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submitted before the State Commission that the District Forum without recording any reason dispensed with the service of OP No. 2, who had issued the Insurance Policy and the best person to contest the Complaint.  This had adversely affected their rights.  They came to know about the passing of the Order only when the Execution Application was filed by the Complainant in December 2014.  On merits, it was submitted that the Insurance Policy was not issued and in view of the request made for cancellation of Policy by Late Bihari Lal, the Policy was cancelled and the amount received towards Premium was refunded.  He submitted that the Insurance Company has a good case on merits and prayed that their application for condonation of delay in fling the Appeal be allowed.  In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107”, in which it has been held that the Court should have liberal approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, and the Judgment passed by this Commission in “Smt. Meena vs. Union of India & Ors.” [2014 (1) CLT 504 (NC)], in which the delay of 6 years in filing the Revision Petition was condoned on the ground that the petitioner has a strong case on merits.

6.            The State Commission allowed the Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal and condoned the delay subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- and fixed the case on 17.11.2015, by observing as under:-.

“9.  It is very much clear from the documents, so proved before the District Forum, that the Policy, if any, was issued by the Head Office of the appellant – company, which is located at Bombay. Even the above said letter for cancellation of the Policy was addressed by the life assured to its said office at Bombay. The complainant impleaded that Head office as opposite party No.2. The District Forum, without recording any reason mentioned in the order dated 14.3.2011 ‘Notice to OP No.2 dispensed with’. If it was to dispense with that notice, it was required to record the reasons for the same, as the complainant was seeking relief against both the opposite parties.

10.  It cannot be made out from the original order dated 16.5.2011 that the certified copies of the same were sent the Opposite Parties as there is no endorsement at the bottom of that order regarding the sending of those copies nor the mode in  which the same was sent is mentioned therein. From all this, it can be made out that the appellants have good case on merits and, as such, the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned. However, for the prejudice likely to be caused to the complainant by the allowing of this application, he is to be compensated.

11.  Accordingly the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the payment of ₹10,000/-, as costs.”

7.            Aggrieved by the above interim Order, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission. 

8.            We have heard Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Meenakshi Midha, learned Counsel for the Respondents, perused the Orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum, other material available on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the Parties.

9.            It is settled principle of law that the finding of facts recorded by the State Commission in Appeal, cannot be interfered with in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction unless the said finding has been recorded by misreading of evidence, materials on record or ignoring them or it is contrary to the law laid down in this regard by higher court of law.  In the present case, the finding of the State Commission that the delay in filing the Appeal is to be condoned, is based on appreciation of evidence and material on record.  It does not suffer from misreading of evidence or ignoring any material on record.  It is not contrary to the law laid down by the higher court of law. 

10.          The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  by observing as under:

“9.          It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

11.          For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the State Commission condoning the delay in filing the Appeal, does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. The interim Order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the State Commission is upheld.

12.          As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Parties shall raise their respective pleas at the time of hearing before the State Commission.  Both the Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 12.04.2022.