Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.2.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint against OP Nos.1 & 2(now appellants) in the following manner ; “In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.70,000/-, after deducting Rs.14,537/- already paid to the complainant. OP Nos.1 and 2 are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP Nos.1 and 2 within one month from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP Nos.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.65,463/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation. ” The complaint against OP No.3(now respondent No.2) was, however, dismissed. 2. The complainant (now respondent No.1) got insured his car bearing registration No.PH-11Y-3502 with OP Nos.1 and 2 vide insurance policy No.OG-09-1202-1801-00001878 for insured declared value of Rs.4 lacs, against the premium of Rs.11079/-, for the period from 30.04.2008 to 29.04.2009. On 4/5.08.2008, the car of the complainant got damaged with heavy rains. M/s Lali Motors, Chandigarh OP No.3(now respondent No.2) prepared an estimate of Rs.2.5 lacs. It was stated that on the request of the surveyor, the vehicle was taken to a private mechanic of Sector 38, Chandigarh, who assessed the loss more than Rs. 2 lacs. It was further stated that the complainant incurred Rs.70,000/- as expenses towards repair of his car, whereas, the surveyor assessed the loss, in the sum of Rs. 12,612/- instead of Rs.70,000/-. It was further stated that the complainant accepted this amount of Rs.12,612/- under protest, but the claim with regard to the remaining amount, was, however, rejected by the OPs. It was further stated that this act of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. OP Nos.1 & 2 in their written reply, admitted that the car in question, was insured with them for the period from 30.04.08 to 29.04.09, for the insured declared value of Rs.4 lacs. It was stated that on receipt of the claim intimation, M/s Protec Engineer was appointed as surveyor, which assessed the loss to tune of Rs.14537/- vide its report dated 03.09.2008 annexure R-1. It was further stated that the said amount was duly released to the complainant vide cheque dated 18.09.2008. It was further stated that the complainant accepted the said amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim, after executing a discharge voucher. It was further stated that once the complainant, accepted the amount, aforesaid, in full and final satisfaction of the claim, without any coercion, he could not, later on, say that he was entitled to receive more amount. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor indulgence into unfair trade practice. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2. 7. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 131 days, in filing the same, was also moved, stating therein, that the case in question, pertained to Chandigarh, whereas, the dealing office was at Delhi. It was further stated that approval for filing the appeal, was to be obtained from the Head Office, situated at Pune. It was further stated that delay also occurred, on account of the reason, that the demand draft was wrongly prepared, in the name of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It was further stated that, later on, the mistake was rectified and the demand draft was prepared, in the name of this Commission. It was further stated that the delay of 131 days, in filing the appeal, was neither deliberate, nor intentional, but, on account of the reasons, referred to above. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the applicants/appellants and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the applicants/appellants , submitted that since approval for filing the appeal, was taken from the Head Office of the Company, situated at Pune, by the dealing office at Delhi, so the delay occurred. It was further stated that the demand draft was prepared, in the wrong name, which was later on rectified. He further submitted that the delay was, thus, neither intentional nor deliberate. He further submitted that the substantial question of law, is involved, in the appeal, and if the delay is not condoned, then the applicants/appellants, shall suffer an irreparable loss. He further submitted that there is sufficient cause, for condoning the delay. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the applicants/appellants, we are of the considered opinion, that the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is liable to be dismissed , for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The condonation of delay, has been sought, on two grounds, i.e. the Head Office of the Company, being situated at Pune, and the approval for filing the appeal was to be sought therefrom, and that the demand draft, required to be attached with the appeal, at the time of filing the same, was prepared in the name of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, instead of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh. The mere fact that the Head Office of the Company is situated at Pune, in itself, cannot be said to be a sufficient ground, not to file the appeal within the prescribed period. If the officials of the applicants/appellants were palpably negligent, in processing the case promptly, for the seeking approval of the Head Office, for filing the appeal, then the Commission cannot come to their rescue. The demand draft was also prepared, in the name of the wrong Commission, only on account of the palpable negligence of the officials of the applicants/appellants. Had they been vigilant and diligent enough, such a situation would not have arisen. The law only comes to the rescue of the diligent and vigilant. There was complete inaction and lack of bonafides, on the part of the applicants/appellants, in filing the appeal, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The delay in filing the appeal is 4 months and 11 days more than the normal period of 30 days, within which the same could be filed. The delay was intentional and deliberate. No sufficient cause is constituted, for condoning the delay of 131 days. 11. The person invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission for condonation of delay is required to satisfy it that he was unable to present his appeal, in time, on account of some misadventure or incapacity of the circumstances, beyond his control or such sufficient cause which bonafide prevented him in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The principle of law, laid down, in P.K.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and another 1998(1)SLJ626(SC), was to the effect that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied, with all its rigor, when the statute, so prescribes, and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation, on equitable grounds. The principle of law, laid down, in Raghubansh Vs State of Haryana and Ord.1998(2)SLJ1277, was to the effect, that it does not seem to be possible, to say complete good-bye, to the Limitation Act, and to hold that whatever be the delay and, however, unsatisfactory the explanation, the Court is bound to condone it. 12. The Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) II(2009)CPJ 29(SC), considered the provisions of Section 24A of the Act. Although, the question before the Apex Court, was only with regard to the condonation of delay, in filing the complaint in the first instance, beyond the period of two years, as envisaged by Section24A of the Act, yet it (Apex Court) was pleased to observe as under ; “Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus: “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.” It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” 13. The principle of law laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since, this Commission has come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, as such, the appeal is barred by time, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in State Bank of India’s case(supra) decided by the Apex Court, it would be committing an illegality, in deciding the appeal on merits. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 131 days, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by time, is also dismissed. 15. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
