Taken up through video conferencing.

Heard the learned counsel on admission.

Perused the material on record.

1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 22.10.2019 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, in Appeal No. 506 of 2016 arising out of the Order dated 27.01.2016 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Visakhapatnam in Consumer Complaint No. 154 of 2013.

2.       The revision petition has been filed with reported delay of 556 days.

The application for condonation of delay speaks of the COVID-19 situation. However, the outbreak of COVID-19 in this country first took place in around March 2020. The State Commission had passed its Order in October 2019, prior to the said outbreak. The defence of ‘the COVID-19 situation’, therefore, fails.

The application does not bother to compute the number of days of delay, it just prays for condonation of delay, “if any”.

A mere perusal of the application shows that the reasons afforded for the delay only point towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and unpersuasive in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay in filing the revision petition.

Sufficient cause to condone the delay is not visible.

However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the revisionist insurance co., to decide the matter on merit, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the revisionist insurance co. in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission within four weeks from today.

3.       The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim on the death of the insured. The insured expired in the year 2011. Her nominee was her mother, Smt. Gorle Gangayamma. On the claim(s) being repudiated, the nominee, Smt. Gorle Gangayamma, then aged about 50 years, filed a Complaint before the District Commission in the year 2013.

The District Commission, vide its Order dated 27.01.2016, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the opposite parties no. 1 and no. 2, the insurance co., to pay the Complainant the assured sum(s) of Rs. 9,06,500/- along with Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of its Order. The insurance co. was afforded the due opportunity to contest the complaint, which it duly availed.

The State Commission, vide its Order dated 22.10.2019, dismissed the insurance co.’s appeal for want of prosecution, inter alia recording that:

‘No representation on behalf of the appellants since 19.02.2019. This Commission posted the matter to 07.10.2019 as a last chance. On 07.10.2019 also no representation on behalf of the appellants, when the matter is posted as a last chance. On 07.10.2019, this Commission posted the matter to today ‘for dismissal’. Today also no representation on behalf of the appellants up to 3.45 p.m., even though the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”. It seems that the appellants are not interested to prosecute the matter, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.’. (para 2 of its Order).

A bare perusal of the above-quoted extract of the State Commission’s Order shows that sufficient opportunity, and more, was provided to the insurance co. to pursue its appeal, before it was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The insured expired in 2011. The Complainant went before the District Commission in 2013. The District Forum decided the Complaint in favour of the Complainant in 2016. The insurance co. filed appeal in 2016. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in 2019.

Considering the protracted period from 2011 onwards, considering that the District Commission passed its Order on contest, after affording the due opportunity to the insurance co., and considering that the State Commission afforded sufficient opportunity, and more, to the insurance co. before dismissing its appeal for want of prosecution, this Commission finds no reason to interfere with the impugned Order of the State Commission.

No jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible.

On the contrary, now remanding the case to the State Commission, as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist insurance co., may, albeit, result in a travesty of justice, as the case, which has not attained finality in the consumer fora even after about a decade of the death of the deceased insured, would be procrastinated further. It bears significance that the District Commission has not awarded any interest in case of delay in making good its award. In such situation, further delay in making good the award will add to the continuing travail and prejudice being caused to the Complainant.

4.       The revision petition, being misconceived and bereft of worth, being frivolous and vexatious, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the revisionist insurance co. through its chief executive in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission within a period of four weeks from today.

The insurance co. through its chief executive is ordered to make good the award made by the District Commission within four weeks from today, failing which the award shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the instant Order of this Commission, and, concomitantly, the District Commission shall undertake execution, both for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalties’, as per the law. (The travail and prejudice being caused to the Complainant should, now, end.)

The insurance co. through its chief executive is also advised to inculcate and imbibe systemic improvement for future so that the ordinary consumers / complainants do not face such procrastination, such travail and prejudice, in such way and manner as has been faced by the present Complainant in the instant case.

5.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the revision petition as well as to the District Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.