PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 77 days in filing the present Revision Petition. Petitioners have explained the delay in their application for condonation of delay, as follows. The petitioners received the order of the State Commission on 30.10.2012 and the penal advocate gave the opinion on 15.11.2012. On 16.11.2012, the manager of regional office opined that review petition could not be filed in the same Forum. On 22.11.2012, senior divisional manager of the petitioner Insurance Company forwarded the file to head office of the Company for the purpose of filing the Revision Petition. On 11.02.2013, after the elapse of two months, the present counsel received the file. But he faced a problem. The documents were written in Marathi language. On 19.02.2013, the counsel sent the documents for translation. Office of the present counsel received the translated copies of Marathi documents but no date has been mentioned. On 11.03.2013, the draft of the present Revision Petition was sent to the petitioners-Insurance Company for the purpose of discussion and signatures. Thereafter, after consultation, this Revision Petition was filed before this National Commission on 15.04.2013. Consequently, there is a delay of 77 days. 2. We are of the considered view that the delay has not been explained satisfactorily. This is a departmental and procedural delay. The case was not taken on war footing. The Insurance Company took this case on a happy go lucky manner. Day to day delay was never explained. We are not satisfied by the application for condonation of delay. It has to be dismissed in view of the authorities reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 3. The latest view taken by the Apex Court in various authorities also goes against the petitioners. Due to lack of evidence, 13 days delay was not condoned because the medical certificate was not produced in a recent case reported in “Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission. 4. Again the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned. 5. Again delay of 78 days was not condoned in the case reported in M/s Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.07.2013. 6. The case is, therefore, barred by time. 7. Now we turn to the merits of this case. The State Commission observed in its order in para No. 4:- “4. It is the case of the Complainant that he could not repair the insured vehicle since the insurance claim was not sanctioned within reason time and though the Insurance Company asked him to carry on the repairs; same could not be carried out for want of funds. If we look to the evidence adduced on behalf of the Complainant, we find that there is hardly any evidence to substantiate his claim for an amount of `12,00,000/- viz. at par with Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle. Under the circumstances what is assessed by the Surveyor about the loss and damage caused to the insured vehicle cannot be overlooked. After examination of the damaged insured vehicle and admissibility of the claim as per insurance policy, the Surveyor assessed the liability of the Insurance Company at `5,14,399.50ps., plus CR, if any. ‘CR’ items are referred in the survey report itself. It refers to engine parts and other items as mentioned therein subject to adjusting salvage value @ 6% on metal items. Total value of ‘CR’ items comes to `5,26,100/- and after adjusting salvage @ 6% i.e. `31,566/-, net value of ‘CR’ items comes to `4,94,534/-. Thus, the total liability of the Insurance Company would come to `10,08,934/- (`5,14,399.50ps. + `4,94,534/-). Thus, based on the survey report this much claim could be allowed. Hence, impugned order needs to be modified suitably. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- ORDER Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 20th February, 2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad in Consumer Complaint No.123 of 2008 is modified. In sub-clause (a) of the operative part of the impugned order instead of an amount of ‘`12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs only)’ substitute the same by an amount of ‘10,08,934/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Four only)’. Except for this modification rest of the order stands confirmed.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners picks up a conflict with the amount of Rs. 4,94,534/-. He does not pick up a conflict with the grant of Rs. 5,14,399.50 paise. However, we have perused the report of the surveyor. Surveyor has already came to the conclusion that Insurance Company has to pay a sum of Rs. 5,14,3.00.50paise plus C.R. The surveyor is silent about the C.R. He should have mentioned the entire amount. The judgment passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. It has considered all the facts, already discussed above. 9. The Revision Petition is lame of strength and, therefore, dismissed. |
