KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 1331/2023 in APPEAL No. 667/2023
ORDER DATED: 27.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 161/2018 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
- M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office at A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110 002.
- M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office at A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110 002 represented by its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.
- The Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Coe-44090, 9/82 9(12), KVM Plaza Main Road, Ottapalam P.O., Palakkad.
(By Adv. S. Rajeev)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Jubil Yoosuf, S/o Yoosuf, Jubil Mandir, Kumbalakkode P.O., Pazhayannur, Thrissur-680 587.
- The Manager, M/s E-Meditek TPA Services Ltd., 577, Udyog Vihar Phase V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 016.
- M/s E-Meditek TPA Services Ltd., KPV Estate, 4th Floor, Civil Line Road, Opp: ING Vysya Bank, Palarivattom P.O., Cochin-682 025.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application seeking for condoning the delay of 163 days in filing the appeal.
2. It is contended by the petitioners that the order dated 23.02.2023 of the District Commission was received by the petitioners on 22.03.2023. However, the petitioners preferred a review petition before the District Commission and as per order dated 06.06.2023 the review petition was dismissed by the District Commission. Thereafter, the branch office forwarded the files to the Divisional Office, Palakkad and thereafter it was forwarded to the Regional office, Kochi for getting sanction to file the appeal. The Regional office forwarded the file to the company advocate concerned for getting legal opinion and after that, files were sent to Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram for preferring the appeal. It is stated that the delay is due to administrative reason.
3. Heard.
4. The object of the law of limitation is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. We may now go through the authorities on the point before proceeding further.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011 KHC 5263 :2011 (14) SCC 578) held in paragraph 5 as hereinbelow:-
“5. 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 fora”.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy(Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 KHC 6197 : 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 Live Law (SC) 288, after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It was further held in the above decision that a right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs.(Supra) that the courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. The Apex Court also held that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.
7. The National Commission in Liberty Videocon General Insurance Vs. MS. Rathod in First Appeal No. 1189 of 2023 held that where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence, the delay condonation petition cannot be permitted. In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application seeking for condoning the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal.
8. The National Commission in Appeal Execution No. 8 of 2024 held that when the appeal is filed beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain as to what sufficient cause which prevented him from approaching the court within the period of limitation. The National Commission further observed that adequate and enough reason must be there for condoning the delay. In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal.
9. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the State Commission dismissed the application, for condonation of delay of 142 days, filed on the ground that the records were misplaced by the junior advocate of the counsel concerned. The National Commission did not interfere with the said order.
10. In the light of the above legal position, we have to test whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned or not in this case.
11. It is submitted that the petitioners filed a review application before the District Commission against the order impugned. Therefore, the said period has to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the delay in filing the appeal. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the review application was filed on 28.04.2023 and the said application was dismissed by the District Commission on 06.06.2023. Thus a period of 40 days, during which the petitioners were prosecuting before the District Commission with the review application, shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation. Therefore, the delay will come to 123 days instead of 163 days. The delay of the above stated 123 days was due to administrative reason. The administrative reason cannot be said to be a sufficient reason to condone the delay of 123 days in filing the appeal.
12. Having gone through the reasons stated by the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioners are not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in this case. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 667/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 27.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 161/2018 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office at A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110 002.
- M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Head Office at A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110 002 represented by its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.
- The Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Coe-44090, 9/82 9(12), KVM Plaza Main Road, Ottapalam P.O., Palakkad.
(By Adv. S. Rajeev)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Jubil Yoosuf, S/o Yoosuf, Jubil Mandir, Kumbalakkode P.O., Pazhayannur, Thrissur-680 587.
- The Manager, M/s E-Meditek TPA Services Ltd., 577, Udyog Vihar Phase V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 016.
- M/s E-Meditek TPA Services Ltd., KPV Estate, 4th Floor, Civil Line Road, Opp: ING Vysya Bank, Palarivattom P.O., Cochin-682 025.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 1331/2023, this appeal stands dismissed as time barred.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be given to the 1st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
