Haryana

StateCommission

A/40/2020

JAGPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

CHANDER PAL TIWANA

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.40 of 2020

Date of Institution:16.01.2020

Date of decision:11.02.2020

 

Jagpal Singh S/o Shri Balbir Singh, R/o Village Sohanpur, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.

…Appellant.

Versus

 

1.      General Manager Claim, Servicing Office, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor, Sohan Singh Complex, Near Railway Crossing, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana (Punjab)

2.      General Manager Claim, Heard Office, Iffco Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.)

3.      Amit Kumar Goel, C/o Amit Insurance Services, W. No.8, Near BDO Office, Safidon, District Jind.

 

…Respondents.

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Chander Pal Tiwana, counsel for the appellant.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL, MEMBER:

 

          Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2.               There is a delay of 362 days in filing the present appeal.  Along with the present appeal appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 362 days wherein,  it is alleged that the impugned order was passed on 04.12.2018 and delivered to the appellant on 18.12.2018. Learned counsel for complainant asked her clerk to inform the complainant about preparation of certified copy but he forgot to inform the complainant. After waiting some time, complainant visited to his counsel on 20.03.2019 and obtained the brief alongwith certified copy of impugned order dated 04.12.2018. Thereafter, complainant contacted the present counsel on 21.03.2019 for filing of appeal before this Commission. It is further alleged that on 22.03.2019, registry of this Commission raised certain objections that written statement filed before District Forum should be placed on record. Thereafter, complainant again contacted his counsel before District Forum and collected the documents. Hence, delay of 362 days has been occurred, which is neither intentional nor deliberate.

3.                Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

4.                It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order was passed on 04.12.2018 and delivered to the appellant on 18.12.2018. Learned counsel complainant asked her clerk to inform the complainant about preparation of certified copy but he forgot to inform the complainant. After waiting for some time, complainant visited to his counsel on 20.03.2019 and obtained the brief alongwith certified copy of impugned order dated 04.12.2018. Thereafter, complainant contacted the present counsel on 21.03.2019 for filing of appeal before this Commission. It is further argued that on 22.03.2019, registry of this Commission raised certain objections that written statement filed before District Forum should be placed on record. Thereafter, complainant again contacted his counsel before District Forum and collected the documents. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional and may be condoned.

5.               However, the contention of learned counsel for appellants to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso 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 prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay of 362 days cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or cause to condone the same.

6.                Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“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 rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court 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”.

 

7.                  In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 362 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. Moreover, present case is not good on merits. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed being time barred as well as on merits.

 

 

11^th February, 2020            Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                                                                 Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench

 

R.K