1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.02.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.736 of 2014.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that deceased Mr. Sharad was the son of the complainant GangadharJalkote.  On 13.4.2013, he was proceeding to Satala from Lohara on Motor Cycle after filing the complaint regarding non-working of his ATM card with SBI. On the way motor cycle collided with a car and he was injured.  During treatment,Mr. Sharad son of Gangadhar Jalkote died on 17.04.2013.  Without lodging any claim before the Insurance Company the complainant filed a consumer complaint no.02/2014 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Latur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) with prayer that under two wheeler package accident policy no.OG-13-2010-1802-00005360, Rs.1,00,000/- be paid to the complainant.  The opposite party/petitioner herein resisted the complainant on the ground that the policy was not in the name of the deceased and it only covered the liability arising for the owner-driver and the son of the complainant was not the owner-driver. Hence,  OP requested for dismissal of the complaint.   The District Forum vide its order dated 23.09.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of complaint and Rs.3000/- towards mental and physical harassment.

3.      Aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2014 of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.02.2016.

4.      Hence the revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the policy is not in the name of the deceased Mr. Sharad rather it is in the name of Sandip Uttam rao Kalse.  Moreover, the liability in the policy mentions only for the owner-driver.  The deceased is not the owner of the insured vehicle and therefore, he cannot be called an owner-driver under GR 36 of the India Motor Tariff. Owner –driver has been defined as the person who is owner of the vehicle and holds an effective driving license at the time of accident.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following judgments in support of his case.

(i)  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Havaben and M/s. Arif Enterprise, RP No.3061 of 2008, decided on 04.09.2013 (NC).

(ii)    ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ChanderPrabha&Anr., RP No.1202 of 2008, decided on 15.04.2013 (NC).

(iii)   IFFCO Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. SheetalbenNileshbhaiSurti, RP No.1420 of 2012, decided on 16.09.2014 (NC).

8.      Learned counsel further mentioned that there has been a delay of 48 days in filing the present revision petition.  The reasons for delay have been explained in the application for condonation of delay.  Apart from correspondence between the Lawyer and the Insurance Company, the main reason has been given post-pregnancy medical problems of the concerned counsel for which the medical certificate has also been filed.  It was further mentioned that the orders of both the fora below are against the law and therefore, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 

9.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that scope of the revision petition is very limited as fora below have given concurrent findings. He further stated that the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner does not mention any concrete cause of delay rather it only mentions the procedural delay and the sickness of the concerned Advocate.  The learned counsel argued that a consumer forum has to decide the question of delay first and then any discussion on merits can take place.  It was argued that the petitioner may have engaged another Lawyer if one Lawyer was not well to file the revision petition in time.  Learned counsel for the respondent requested that the application for condonation of delay may be dismissed as no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay.

10.    We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and have examined the record.  We agree that it is the duty of the consumer forum to first see the question of limitation.  In the matter of State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) AIR 2009 SC 2210 it has been held that:

 “8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside”.

11.    In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court 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.” 

12.    From the above two judgments, it is clear that we have to first examine the question of delay and to see whether it is properly explained. There is a delay of 48 days in filing the revision petition.  The application for condonation of delay mentions the reasons for delay as follows:-

“3.   It is submitted that upon passing of the above impugned order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Ld. Consumer Forum.  The counsel appearing on behalf of appellant received the attested copy of the judgment on 03.03.2016 by hand.

4.  That upon receipt of the aforesaid impugned judgment on 03.03.2016, intimation was sent by the Legal Cell to the concerned department of the petitioner Company on 05.03.2016.  A period of 15 days was consumed in tracing the documents of the said case.  After the necessary reconstruction, the same were sent to the legal cell of the petitioner Company on or about 20.03.2016.

5.     Upon perusal of the case papers and the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Forum, approval was granted by the legal cell to prefer a revision against the impugned order dated 29.02.2016.

6.     The relevant case papers and the pleadings filed before the Ld. Tribunal were sent to the Advocate for the appellant on 25.03.2016.

7.     That a draft appeal was sent by the advocate for the appellant to the legal cell on 21.04.2016.  It is submitted that certain queries/instructions were sought by the said advocate in relation to the present appeal.  The relevant instruction along with the suggested incorporation to the proposed appeal were sent by the legal cell of the appellant company on 25.04.2016.  That the final draft was sent by the Advocate to the legal cell on 30.04.2016.

8.     It is important to mention here that the counsel for the petitioner is suffering from post-pregnancy medical problems which aggravated during this period, due to which she could file the instant revision on time.  A copy of the medical certificates/reports are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A.

9.     It is most respectfully submitted that the present appeal was filed on……………. That there is a delay of…………… days in filing the present appeal.

10.  That the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and is in view of the reasons as mentioned above.”

13.    From the above it is evident that the causes shown for the delay are mainly of procedural nature, particularly  the correspondence between the Advocate and the petitioner and the sickness of the concerned counsel of the petitioner.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 has observed as under:- 

“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and  instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30.  Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.  Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay”.

14.    From the above judgment, it is clear that the procedural delays and correspondences do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.  Moreover, special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to provide speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;

“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.”

15.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

  5.    In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.         

6.      Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.”

16.    Rights may accrue to the other parties if there is a delay for filing appeal or revision petition by one party.  In this case also, as there was delay in filing the revision petition, the complainant has withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited with the District Forum when the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. So far as the question of illness of the concerned Advocate is concerned, petitioner was always at liberty to take the services of any other Advocate for filing the revision petition in time.  The application for condonation of delay has been filed in a very casual way as is evident from the fact that the application for condonation of delay has used petitioner as appellant at many places. Not only this, the date of filing of the revision petition and the delay in number of days have been kept as blank.  Lot of time has been wasted in correspondence between counsel and the petitioner and in making clarification, which could have been saved by sitting across the table.  Thus, we do not find sufficient ground to condone the delay of 48days in filing the revision petition.

17.    The petitioner herein is before this Commission under the revisional jurisdiction.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654,  has observed as under; 

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

18.    In the present case also, there has been a concurrent finding of both the fora below.  Hence under the revisional jurisdiction, once the application for condonation of delay is being dismissed, we are of the view that no purpose would be served in considering the merits of the case at this stage.  Thus, we are not going into the merits of the case as the revision petition is highly time barred.

19.    The observation made by various courts in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above, are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction is imputable to the petitioner.  No sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the long delay of 48 days.  Under these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, the present revision petition No.2165 of 2016 also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.  No order as to costs.