Haryana

StateCommission

A/1142/2016

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULDEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN OHRI

15 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                               

First Appeal No.   :       1142 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution :      30.11.2016

                                                Date of Decision          :        15.03.2017

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 14, 4^th Floor, Sector 5, Panchkula and Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar, through Navjeet Singh, Senior Executive Legal.

                              Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Kuldeep Singh aged 40 years, son of Sh. Ramji Lal, resident of Village Khajuri, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                   Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

                                        

Present:              Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant.

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated March 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Kuldeep Singh-complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay the assessed amount of Rs.12,934/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization; Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- litigation expenses to the complainant.   

2.      The complainant was owner of tractor bearing No.HR02Y-4335.  The tractor was insured with the Insurance Company from August 11^th, 2012 to August 10^th, 2013.  On September 08^th, 2012 the tractor met with an accident.  First Information Report No.112 dated September 19^th, 2012 under Section 279 and 337 IPC was registered in the Police Station Radaur.  The complainant got the tractor repaired from Hari Motors, Karnal and spent Rs.50,000/- on its repair.  The complainant submitted his claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled. 

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that Sh. Roop Chand Chaudhary, surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.12,934/-.  After processing of the claim papers, it was found that the driver of the tractor/trolley Sh. Ravinder Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive goods carriage/transport vehicle at the time of accident.  Two persons were travelling on the tractor whereas the sitting capacity of the tractor was one person. 

4.      The Insurance Company has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 220 days delay in filing the appeal. The grounds taken in the application are as under:-

“2.     That however the appeal could not be filed in time due to the procedural delays and in collecting necessary documents for filing the appeal.  Date of order is 18.03.2016.  Certified copy of the order was prepared on 25.03.2016 and received by our counsel appearing before the Hon’ble District Forum. Due to inadvertence of clerk of the learned advocate, order was placed by the clerk and found only in the first week of August, 2016.  Later counsel sent the copy of the order with his opinion to office of appellant Insurance Company at Panchkula which was received on 17.08.2016.  Later case file was sent to Head Office of the appellant Insurance Company for approval of the present case.  The case was approved for filing of appeal by the Head Office in the first week of September, 2016 and file was sent back to the office at Panchkula wherein handling legal officers of the regions look after the cases.  Later on 2^nd week of the September, 2016, present counsel was appointed for filing of an appeal and request for demand draft was made in the name of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana.  By mistake of the Bank Officials, wrong DD had been made dated 19.09.2016. Then, counsel of his case asked the registry whether said DD can be deposited.  They confirmed that it cannot be deposited as name of the payee is incomplete in DD.  Later counsel requested the appellant company to issue fresh DD in this case for filing of an appeal.  Then appellant company again requested the bank officials to make the DD with correct name.  Then on 21.10.2016, new DD was made and sent to the office at Panchkula which was received on 26.10.2016.  Now, after receipt of the correct DD, appeal is being 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 220 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

14.    Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal.  It is not in dispute that the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company.  It met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  Perusal of driving licence (Annexure A-2) of Ravinder Kumar clearly shows that he was licenced to drive tractor, car, jeep, scooter, motorcycle and it was valid upto March 24^th, 2030.  So, the ground taken by the Insurance Company that Ravinder Kumar was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, is hereby rejected.  Another ground taken by the Insurance Company was that at the time of accident, two persons were traveling in the tractor.  In the FIR (Annexure A-4), it was no where mentioned that at the time of accident, two persons were traveling in the tractor.  So, this ground of the Insurance Company is also repelled. The Insurance Company adopted deprecated practice by denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claim lodged with the complainant was otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The Insurance Company should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants 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 statutory amount of Rs.12,098/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 15.03.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK