Tripura

StateCommission

RP/4/2015

Smt. Gopa Karmakar & 3 others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Max New York Life insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sarajit Bhattacharya, Mr. Basudev Chakraborty, Mr. Debabrata De

26 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

APPEAL CASE No. R.P.-04/2015.

 

 

1. Smt. Gopa Karmakar,

W/O Lt. Raju Karmakar,

 

2. Shri Raj Karmakar,

S/O Lt. Raju Karmakar.

 

3. Shri Angshuman Karmakar,

S/O Lt. Raju Karmakar

 

The Revisionists nos.2 & 3 are minor and they are represented by their natural guardian and next friend to the minors i.e. Revisionist No.1.

 

4. Smt. Archana Karmakar,

W/O Lt. Anil Chandra Karmakar

All are the resident of D.B.C. Road, Near Old TRTC Office, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, West Tripura.

 

 

                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellants/Revisionists.

 

                   Vs

 

1. Branch Manager,

Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/s. Peerless Financial Products Distribution Ltd.

(Formerly known as Peerless Developers Ltd.)

C/o Peerless, Akhaura Road, Agartala,

Dist: West Tripura.

                             ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondent.

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

For the Appellant   :         Mr. Surajit Bhattacharjee, Adv., Mr. Debabrata De, Adv. &

Mr. Basudev Chakraborty, Adv. 

For the respondent :        

 

Date of Hearing       :       23.11.2015

Date of delivery of Judgment: 26.12.2015

J U D G M E N T

 

S. Baidya, J,

            This revision petition filed on 31.08.2015 by the petitioners-revisionists under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the Order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala, in case No.CC-05/2014, whereby Ld. District Forum rejected the application filed under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and consequently, dismissed the complaint filed under section 12 of the said Act being time barred. 

2. The case of the revisionists as narrated in the revision petition, in brief, is that the revisionists filed one complaint petition against the respondent along with an application under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condoning the delay of 1628 days due to the unnatural death of the husband of the revisionist No.1 Smt. Gopa Karmakar, the father of the revisionists nos. 2 & 3 and son of the revisionist No.4 namely, deceased Raju Karmakar who died on 18.07.2010 and due to such unnatural death, East Agartala Police Station U.D. Case No.36/2010 was registered followed by post-mortem examination over the dead body of Raju Karmakar held in Agartala Medical College and GBP Hospital.
3. It is alleged that during the lifetime, Raju Karmakar insured his life with the Max New York Life Insurance Company, Ltd. on payment of premium making the revisionist No.1 as his nominee in respect of that policy.
4. It is also alleged that after the death of policy holder Raju Karmakar, one day the revisionist No.1 Smt. Gopa Karmakar found the said policy in the residential house of the insured and after getting the policy, the revisionist on so many occasions met with the Branch Manager of the respondent to settle the claim, but she was harassed by the respondent in many ways.
5. It is also alleged that on 03.09.2014, when the revisionist No.1 went to the office of the respondent with original certified copies of the P.M. report and the official of the respondent-opposite party verified the same and thereafter on the expiry of Puja vacation, the revisionist No.1 further enquired about her claim, but all her attempts were ended in smoke and then, the revisionist No.1 understood that the respondent was lacking to discharge his service towards her and thereafter the revisionist did contact with her engaged counsel in the first week of November and ultimately, being disappointed, the revisionists approached the Consumer Forum against the respondent with the complaint.
6. It is also alleged in the revision petition that on receipt of the notice, the respondent appeared and filed written objection, wherefrom it was found that the name of the higher authority of the policy is the Branch Manager, Peerless Financial Products Distribution Ltd., 42 Akhaura Road, Agartala, West Tripura and the respondent is only the seller of the policy. It is also alleged that in the copy of the policy, the name of Peerless Financial Products Distribution Ltd. was not mentioned. It is also alleged that the Ld. Forum heard the submissions of both sides and rejected the condonation petition of the revisionists by the impugned order and thereby being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the revisionists have preferred the revision petition on the grounds that the Ld. Forum failed to consider the medical certificates regarding treatment of the revisionist No.1 and 4 for which at least 6 (six) months were lapsed and as such, the impugned order is liable to be revised/modified, that the Ld. Forum failed to consider that the revisionist No.1 was engaged in her imperative duty towards her mother-in-law and also in looking after her minor children which prevented her to approach the Ld. Forum in due time, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate the explanation regarding the delay of 1628 days and also did not apply its mind in rejecting the application for condonation of delay for filing the complaint, that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Forum is against the law and facts, and hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, it is liable to be set aside.
7. It is also alleged that the revisionists filed one revision petition before filing the present revision petition which was registered as R.P.-2/2015, but due to some defects in the said revision petition, the revisionists filed one application for withdrawal of the said revision petition with a prayer seeking liberty to file a afresh revision petition and accordingly, the revisionists have filed the instant revision petition afresh within the statutory period of limitation.

 

Points for Consideration

8.   The points for consideration are (i) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 1628 days in filing the complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act by the impugned order and (ii) whether the impugned order which is under challenge in this revision petition can be set aside as prayed for.

 

Decisions with Reasons

9. Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
10. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners-revisionists submitted that the revisionist No.1 Smt. Gopa Karmakar is the wretched widow of deceased Raju Karmakar, the policy holder and the revisionist No.4 is an old aged and ailing mother-in-law of the revisionist No.1 and the revisionist nos. 2 & 3 are the two minor sons of the revisionist No.1. He also submitted that the revisionists after the death of the policy holder Raju Karmakar could not know about the existence of such policy and subsequently, after a thorough search in the house, the existence of the said policy came to the notice of the revisionists and thereafter, the revisionist No.1 Smt. Gopa Karmakar met with the Branch Manager of the respondent claiming for settlement of the policy. He also submitted that the time was consumed in collecting various papers in support of the claim, but the Branch Manager of the respondent on taking this or that plea harassed the revisionists and ultimately, did not settle the claim and thus, there caused a delay of 1628 days in lodging the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
11. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionists also submitted that the revisionists narrated vividly the reasons for such delay in the condonation application filed under section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986, but the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate the reasons and erroneously rejected the condonation application by the impugned order which being improper, illegal and unjustified, should be set aside and the revision petition should be allowed.
12. It is found necessary to mention that the respondent No.1 who appeared and contested the condonation application by filing written objection in the District Forum in case No.CC-05/2015, did not turn up to contest this revision petition, in spite of proper service of notice.
13. Admittedly, the present petitioner-revisionists filed revision petition being RP-2/2015 challenging the legality, propriety and justifiability of the impugned order dated 02.06.2015. It also transpires that the petitioners filed an application praying for withdrawal of the said revision petition with a liberty to file the revision petition afresh on the ground that there occurred some material defects in drafting the revision petition. It also transpires that this Commission vide Order dated 07.08.2015 allowed the application of the petitioners with a liberty to file a revision petition afresh, if not otherwise barred by law. It also transpires that thereafter, the petitioners-revisionists filed the instant revision petition afresh on 31.08.2015 challenging the legality, propriety and justifiability of the impugned order. It further transpires that the instant revision petition has been filed well within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of passing of the impugned order and as such, the revision petition has been admitted on 23.11.2015 for hearing.  
14. We have gone through the revision petition, impugned order dated 02.06.2015 and the condonation application filed in the District Forum under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 24A of the C.P. Act deals with the provision of law relating to limitation period which runs as follows-

24A. Limitation Period.-(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

          Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

15. From the above section 24A of the said Act, it is clear that the Consumer Fora shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The petitioner in Para-3 of the condonation application averred that on 18.7.2010, the husband of the petitioner died of unnatural death. This petitioner in the complaint petition in para-8 thereof categorically stated that the cause of action arose on 18.07.2010 since the branch manager, Agartala refused to settle the claim of petitioner.
16. Section 24A (2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 provides that a complaint may be entertained after the period of two years, if the complainant satisfies the Comsumer Fora that he or she had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. So, it is found that the establishment of ‘sufficient cause’ is a pre-condition for admitting a complaint even after the expiry of two years as mentioned in section 24A (I) of the C.P. Act. It is settled principle of law that the ‘sufficient cause’ varies from one case to another and it is purely a question of fact. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2010)5 SCC 459 between Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Chemical Development Corporation has been pleased to hold, “The expression ‘sufficient cause’ applied in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice.”
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited decision has also been pleased to hold, “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.”
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also been held, “Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and stricter approach where the delay is inordinate.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of a case between M/s Gopalji & Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, the judgment of which was pronounced on 23^rd May, 2014, has been pleased to hold that the C.P. Act, 1986 prescribes its own period of limitation and the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986 must be followed strictly.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also been pleased to hold in a case reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) between Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, “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.”
20. It is now settled principle of law that each day’s delay does not require to be explained in a pedantic manner. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned earlier is of the view that the strict approach shall be adopted by the court where the delay is inordinate. If the petitioner does not succeed in establishing ‘sufficient cause’ showing that he or she was prevented from approaching the court within the statutory period of limitation, the question of getting the delay condoned for filing the complaint after the expiry of specified period of limitation does not arise at all.
21. Admittedly, there has been the delay of 1628 days in filing the complaint before the Ld. District Forum under section 12 of the C.P. Act along with an application under section 24A of the said Act for condoning such delay for filing the complaint. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners could make out any sufficient cause for getting the delay of said 1628 days condoned in filing the complaint. It transpires that the petitioners have taken the plea of medical treatment of the petitioner No.1 herself and also of her remaining engaged in the matter of medical treatment of her mother-in-law, the petitioner No.4 Smt. Archana Karmakar. Admittedly, the petitioner nos.2 & 3 are the two minor sons of the petitioner No.1 Smt. Gopa Karmakar. It also transpires that the petitioners in support of that plea of medical treatment filed some original documents and photocopies of some other documents wherefrom it is found that Smt. Archana Karmakar (Petitioner No.4) was under medical treatment from 14.06.2010 to 22.06.2010 and on 06.11.2010. It also transpires that Smt. Archana Karmakar was also under medical treatment from 18.08.2013 to 20.09.2013. It also appears that the petitioner No.1 Smt. Gopa Karmakar was under medical treatment from 18.08.2013 to 09.06.2014. It also appears that Smt. Archana Karmakar was also under medical treatment during the first half of year 2013. It appears that barring these, no other medical paper has been filed showing the petitioner No.1 remaining engaged in the medical treatment for herself and her mother-in-law. Admittedly, the policy holder Raju Karmakar died on 18.07.2010. The medical papers so filed in the District Forum do not establish in any way that the petitioner No.1 Smt. Gopa Karmakar was engaged in the medical treatment of herself or any other member of her family during the period from the date of death of her husband who died on 18.07.2010 till 2012. No cogent nor any sort of explanation has been offered as sufficient cause for the above mentioned period showing that more than two years as mentioned in section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been elapsed for any earthly reason or for any cogent and reasonable ground. So, it is palpable that the plea of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 due to her remaining engaged in the medical treatment of herself and her mother-in-law could not get time to file the complaint claiming the benefit of the insurance policy, has not been substantiated.
22. From the complaint petition, it transpires that the petitioner No.1 met with the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, Agartala Branch on 10.08.2010, claiming the insurance benefit in respect of the policy of her deceased husband. So, it is found that the petitioners were well aware about the existence of the policy of Raju Karmakar within few days of the death of the insured. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware about existence of the insurance policy in the name of Raju Karmakar and subsequently after thorough search they came to know about the existence of the policy, is found not acceptable.
23. Going through the impugned order, it is transpires that the Ld. District Forum has rightly pointed out that the petitioners have filed no document showing that the petitioners ever submitted any claim application before the insurance company claiming insurance benefit, and not only so, the petitioners filed no document for establishing that they ever issued any demand notice to the insurance company claiming insurance benefit before filing of the complaint under the C.P. Act. Be that as it may, the petitioners miserably failed to establish any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint petition within statutory period of two years by assigning any cogent, believable and acceptable grounds. Practically, the petitioners have failed to establish any ‘sufficient cause’ for getting such long delay of 1628 days in filing the complaint condoned.     
24. Going through the impugned order, we find that the Ld. District Forum meticulously considered the entire aspect of the alleged delay of 1628 days and ultimately, arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned order dismissing the application for condonation of delay which, according to us, suffers from no illegality, impropriety and unjustifiability. So, the impugned order, being legal, proper and justified, calls for no interference by this Revisional Authority and as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the revision petition is also liable to be dismissed.
25. In the result, the revision petition fails. The impugned order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.CC-05/2014 is hereby affirmed. There is no order as to costs.  

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura