1.      These revision petition Nos.334 of 2015 and 683 of 2015 have been filed by M/s. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., petitioner, against the order dated 27.08.2014 & 17.12.2013  of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in appeal No.725 of 2014 and Appeal No.3302 of 2012.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that husband of the complainant/respondent No.1 deposited Rs.10,000/- with opposite party No.1 under a Sahara RajatYojna Scheme (Scheme) of opposite party No.1 on 30.06.2003.  The Scheme was some sort of an insurance scheme and Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid in case of death of the insured happening after three years but before four years.  In fact opposite party No.1/petitioner herein had taken a Group Insurance from opposite party No.2/respondent No.2.  The husband of the complainant/insured died on 24.09.2006 in a road accident.  The complainant preferred claim to opposite party No.1, who ultimately forwarded the papers to opposite party No.2.  However, the claim was rejected on the ground that the papers were not filed within 30 days of the death of the deceased as stipulated in the conditions of the policy.  Opposite Party No.2 had alleged that the papers were filed after four years of the death of the insured.

3.      Aggrieved by the acts of opposite party Nos.1 & 2, the complainant filed a complaint bearing No.CC: 177/10 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar, (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by both opposite parties.  However, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly vide its order dated 13.04.2012 as under:-

“(A)  The application of Applicant is partly allowed.

(B)   The order is passed against the opponent to pay Rs.1,50,000- (One Lac Fifty Thousand only to applicant jointly with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application till full payment of the said amount.

(C)   The order is hereby passed against the opponent to pay Rs.1,000/- towards expense of this application to applicant,

(D)   The opponent has to implement this order within 30 days from the date of order.

(E)   The opponent is hereby directed to pay the amount by Account Payee Cheque as shown in application of applicant directly.

(F) Give/send Authorised copy of this Resolution to the parties without charging any thing.”

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, opposite party No.2 preferred an Appeal No.3302 of 2012, wherein opposite party No.1 also participated.  Opposite party No.1 did not prefer any separate appeal at that time.

5.      Appeal No.3302 of 2012 filed by opposite party No.2 was allowed qua opposite party No.2 only by the State Commission vide its order dated 17.12.2013.  The State Commission also confirmed the order of the District Forum qua opposite party No.1. After passing of this order by the State Commission, the opposite party No.1 preferred Appeal No.725 of 2014 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 27.08.2014.

6.      Opposite party No.1 has now preferred revision petition No.334 of 2015 against impugned order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.725 of 2014. Opposite party No.1 has also preferred revision petition No.683 of 2015 against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.3302 of 2012.

7.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2.  Inspite of filing the Vakalatnama, learned counsel for respondent No.1 did not appear at the time of argument. 

8.      The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has raised the point of limitation in filing the complaint by the respondent No.1/complainant in Appeal No.725 of 2014.  However, the State Commission has dismissed his ground without going into the merits by stating that the question of limitation was already decided in Appeal No.3302 of 2012.  Learned counsel emphasized that the complaint was highly barred by limitation and the District Forum should not have considered the complaint.  It was further stated by the learned counsel that the scheme was floated by sister concern of the petitioner.  However, that Company has not been made party by the complainant in the complaint case and therefore, the complaint suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties.  It was further pointed out that the insurance claim was to be decided by opposite party No.2 and therefore, whatever may be the liability in respect of that claim, the same has to be fixed only on opposite party No.2.  The State Commission has wrongly allowed the appeal of opposite party No.2 and has upheld the order of District Forum qua opposite party No.1/petitioner.

9.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 stated that the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.3302 of 2012 preferred by opposite party No.2 has become final.  As no revision petition has been filed against that order in time. The present revision petition No.683 of 2015 against the order dated 17.12.2013 has been filed in the year 2015 with a delay of 321 days.  No proper explanation has been given by the petitioner for condoning the delay.  Therefore, revision petition No.683 of 2015 is clearly barred by limitation and cannot be considered by this Commission.

10.    Coming to the revision petition No.334 of 2015 filed against the order dated 27.08.2014, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2/respondent No.2 stated that this revision petition is basically in respect of dismissal of appeal filed by opposite party No.1 before the State Commission.  In this revision petition no order has been passed against opposite party No.2.  The appeal of opposite party No.2 was already accepted by the State Commission vide its order dated 17.12.2013.  Hence, no liability can be fastened on opposite party No.2 in consideration of revision petition No.334 of 2015.

11.     I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and have examined the material on record.  It is seen from the facts that opposite party No.1 did not prefer any separate appeal initially though he participated in the appeal No.3302 of 2012 filed by opposite party No.2.  The State Commission after considering the submissions of all the parties accepted the appeal of opposite party No.2 and set aside the order of the District Forum qua opposite party No.2, but simultaneously upheld the order of District Forum qua opposite party No.1.  Later on opposite party No.1 preferred an Appeal No.725 of 2014 alleging that the complaint was barred by limitation.  The State Commission rejected this appeal on the ground that question of limitation was already decided in Appeal No.3302 of 2012 vide its order dated 17.12.2013.  The State Commission in this regard has observed the following in this judgement:-

“Now as per argument of Ld. Advocate of Opponent No-1, as per scheme, they are bound to pay interest on Rs.18,608/- and they are not bound to pay interest on any other amount, Now as per argument of Shri Pancholi, the reason of incident and on seeing the date of this complaint filed, it can be said that the complaint has bar of limitation of time and to support his arguments, he has based on II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC), in the case of State Bank of India V/s B.S.Agricultural Industries (I).

(8)  Now this complaint was filed on dt. 12/10/10.  The opponent No-1 Sahara India sent cheque which was of dt. 1/12/10.  In view of above all facts in our sight the complaint of complainant is out of time limit therefore the said judgment is not supporting them in their case.  Thus, whenever the question of opponent no.1 Sahara India consent, the judgment of Ld. Forum will be confirmed against him and the complainant no-1 can initiate proper proceeding against Sahara India.  Thus, taking above all facts into consideration following order is passed .

O R D E R

(1) Present application is hereby allowed for Original Opponent no-2 insurance company i.e. National Insurance Company and the judgment given by Ld. Forum in Complainant No.377/10 on dt. 13/4/2012 is to be considered as cancel enough to opponent no.-2

       (2) Whenever original opponent no-1 Sahara India consent the judgment given on dt. 13/4/2012 in Complainant No.177/10 by Ld. Forum stands confirm.

       (3) No order as to cost.”

12.    From these observations of the State Commission, it is clear that the complaint was not barred by limitation.  The State Commission has also observed in its judgment dated 27.08.2014 that the Appeal No.725 of 2014 filed by opposite party No.1 is also barred by res judicata as the liabilities of all the parties had already been decided in the order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Appeal No.3302 of 2012.  As opposite party No.1 has participated in the proceedings of Appeal no.3302 of 2012, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.725 of 2014. Thus, revision petition No 334 of2015 is found to be having no merits.

13.    Coming to the revision petition No.683 of 2015, it is clear that this revision petition has been filed with a long delay of 321 days.  The application for condonation of delay mentions the following reasons:-

“4.  Thus, the Revisionist had not challenged the Order dated 17.12.2013 passed in the Appeal filed by Respondent no.2 as the same would have been premature in view of the fact that the Appeal filed by it was still pending adjudication.  The revisionist was waiting for the outcome of the Appeal bearing No.725 of 2012.

5.  That the Order in said appeal was passed on 27.08.2014 but the same was not communicated to the Revisionist Company, neither the Revisionist Company received copy of the Order dated 27.08.2014 nor did the Advocate representing the Revisionist Company at Ahmedabad informed about the same.  It was a fault on the part of the Advocate engaged at Ahmedabad. 

6.       The Revisionist learnt about the order only on 29.01.2015, when it had received the Notice of Execution proceedings issued by the Hon’ble District Forum, Bhavnagar against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Appeal No.3302/2012 under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and also copy of the Judgement passed in Appeal No.725 of 2014.  Immediately, thereafter the Revisionist applied for the certified copy of the Judgment/Order dated 27.08.2014 and upon the receipt of the same, the Revisionist contacted its present counsel and accordingly the Revision Petition against the Order dated 27.08.2014 was drafted and filed on 04.02.2015, thereafter, the present counsel further advised that the Order dated 17.12.2013 has to be challenged and accordingly, the revisionist applied for the certified copy of the Order dated 17.12.2013 and the same was received on 30.01.2015 and further the Revisionist was asked to procure necessary documents pertaining to the Appeal No.3302/2012 filed by the Respondent No.2 and the same were in vernacular and same were sent for translation and it could be received only on 28.02.2015 and thereafter the present revision petition was prepared and drafted, accordingly a delay of ­­­_______ days occurred in filing the same.”

14.    First of all the opposite party No.1 did not prefer any appeal in time before the State Commission despite the knowledge that order of the District Forum was against him, though he  participated in the appeal filed by opposite party No.2. After the decision of the State Commission in the appeal filed by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1 preferred separate appeal No.725 of 2014 because the State Commission. Obviously, this appeal was also time barred before the State Commission. However, the State Commission had decided this appeal on the merits/technical grounds. As the order dated 17.12.2013 was against opposite party No.1, Opposite party No.1 should have preferred revision petition against that order.  However, he filed his separate Appeal No.725 of 2014 and waited till its decision on 27.08.2014.  Even considering that he chose to file revision petition after the order of State Commission passed on 27.08.2014, the revision petition has been filed only on 17.03.2015.  Thus, still there is a huge delay in filing the revision petition and the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are not satisfactory.  Special periods of limitation have been provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with an intention of resolving the consumer disputes in reasonable time. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

“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.”

15.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

  5.    In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.         

6.      Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.”

16.    Based on the above judgments and the facts of the case, I find that negligence, carelessness and inactivity are attributable to the petitioner in filing the revision petition No.683 of 2015.  Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently this revision petition stands dismissed being barred by limitation.

17.    Based on the above discussion, both the Revision Petition Nos.334 of 2015 and revision petition No.683 of 2015 are dismissed.