Haryana

StateCommission

A/502/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURPREET FREIGHT CARRIERS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    502 of 2016

Date of Institution:  02.06.2016

Date of Decision:   15.12.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Balmer Lawrie House No.628, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600018, through its authorized signatory, Shri Amit Chawla, Manager, Regional Office, SCO 145-146, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh.

Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

M/s Gurpreet Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. No.58/C, G-Block, 10^th Street, Annanagar East Chennai-600102 Through its Director-Jagjit Singh Walia at present R/o Alpha Olive No.90, Kuppu Samy Street, Golden George Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai. Pin Code 600107.

Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Argued by:          Mr. Satpal Dhamija, counsel for the appellant.       

                   Mr. Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the respondent.

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

By filing the present appeal, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated August 26^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Gurpreet Freight Carriers Private Limited-complainant was allowed. The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of theft, that is, 21^st June, 2011 till realization and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant on account of theft of his truck.

2.      Truck bearing registration No. TN-02S-5288 was insured with the Insurance Company for the period July 09^th, 2010 to July 08^th, 2011. On June 21^st, 2011 the truck was stolen. The driver of the truck namely Ravinder Singh informed the police on June 22^nd, 2011 vide Exhibit C-3. First Information Report No.143 was lodged with the Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar on June 27^th, 2011. The complainant also informed the Insurance Company. The complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that the complainant had sold the truck to one Mr. Ravinder Singh S/o Chottu Ram on May 19^th, 2011. There was a delay of 9 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. There was also a delay of 6 days in lodging of F.I.R. Thus, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant.

4.      The Insurance Company has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 244 days delay in filing the appeal. The grounds taken in the application are as under:-

“2.     That the impugned order of the District Forum, Jhajjar was pronounced on 26.08.2015 and copy of which was supposed to be received from the defending counsel alongwith his opinion for further course of action on part of the Insurance Company but the copy of the same did not receive by the Insurance Company.  It is submitted that on 17.12.2015, the Insurance Company written a mail to the defending counsel to take proper care regarding the defences available with the company, and further on 18.03.2016 again sought the status of the present case and again on 26.03.2016 requested to share the next date and status of the case.  Copy of the above mentioned mails are attached as Annexure A-1, for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Commission.  In the meantime the respondent-complainant filed an execution petition and after receipt of notice the execution petition, it has come into the knowledge of the Insurance Company that the award has already been passed on 26.08.2015.  After coming to the knowledge the fact regarding passing of award, the Insurance Company immediately called the defending counsel to enquire the facts and in response he stated that no award is lying with him and he used to send the copy of awards immediately after receiving the same but shown his inability to show any document that he has sent the award.  Moreover, could not give satisfactory reply that as to why he did not give reply to the mails sent by the Insurance Company as mentioned above which were sent to the defending counsel even after passing an award as till then the applicant was not aware about the passing of the award.  After seeing the conduct and behavior of the defending counsel applicant-complainant deputed another advocate and gave specific instructions to obtain the documents and he sent the photocopy of award.  The matter was examined at RO level and file sent to Head Office at Mumbai and thereafter the competent authority had decided to file an appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.  After taking the above decision the counsel was directed to obtain the certified copy of the orders dated 26.08.2015 and also issued directions to the concerned Account Department to get issued a demand draft of statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-.  Accordingly, after receiving the certified copy of order on 23.05.2016 and the file was entrusted to the present counsel and it is only thereafter that the appeal complete in all respects, was filed…….”

 

5.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Insurance Company.

6.      A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’), for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

7.      It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

8.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

9.      In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

10.    In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

11.    Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012(2) CPC 3 (SC)–Anshul Aggarwal  Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority  observed as under:-

“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”.

 

12.    In view of the above, this Commission has to bear in mind that the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute would get defeated if such like applications filed on frivolous grounds are allowed. The law comes to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

13.    In the case in hand, the ground taken in the application is a sad commentary on the working of the employees of the Insurance Company and this ground is manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 244 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

14.    Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal.   The truck was insured with the Insurance Company. It was stolen on June 21^st, 2011. The police was informed on the very next day of the incident, that is, June 22^nd, 2011 vide application Exhibit C3. The Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that there was a delay of 9 days in giving intimation to it.   The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to prove that the complainant had sold his truck to Ravinder Singh on May 19^th, 2011. There was no proof of receipt of payment. The Insurance Company also did not verify from the complainant regarding proof of payment. The Insurance Company also failed to produce any evidence that Ravinder Singh paid any amount to the complainant in lieu of purchase of truck.  Denying indemnification on mere assumption and presumption cannot be sustained in law. The complainant also filed untraced report vide Exhibit C4. When the registration certificate and insurance policy still existed in the name of the complainant, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the theft of insured truck and cannot escape from its liability. In National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ram Chandra Dhobi, III (2008), CPJ, 287, it has been held that since registration certificate and insurance policy were in the name of transferee/complainant, he was entitled to the benefits of insurance. The Insurance Company cannot deny to indemnify the complainant with respect to the loss of insured vehicle. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on both the grounds, that is, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

15.    The deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,46,806/-respectively be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.  

  

Announced 15.12.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

UK