Delhi

StateCommission

A/1010/2014

M/S AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRS. SUNITA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 27.04.2017

 

First Appeal- 1010/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the District Forum, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint case No. 1127/09)

 

        In the Matter of:

               

          M/s Aviva Life Insurance

Co. India Pvt. Ltd.

 

Registered Office:

2^nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building,

7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110 001

 

Head Office:

M/s Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd.

Opposite Golf Course DLF, Phase-V,

Sector-5, Gurgaon, Haryana

                                                                                     …. Appellant

Versus     Mrs. Sunita Devi W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar R/o- WZ 68/1, Tatar Pur, Tagore Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110027                                              …….Respondent

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.             The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint case No. 1127/09. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay along with the present appeal.

2.             According to the appellant there is a delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal. The grounds on which the appellant is seeking delay to be condoned is read as under:

        “2. That there is delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal. It is submitted that the said delay in neither deliberate nor intentional but due to facts as mentioned hereunder:

        3. It is submitted that the Counsel for the appellant Company received the impugned order dated 12.05.2014 from the registry on 06.06.2014 as no free copy of the order has been received by the Appellant Company from the Hon’ble District Forum.

        4. That after receipt of the said order the Appellant Company vide email dated 02.06.2014 requested present Counsel to hand over the case file with certified copy of the documents and order so as to enable the Appellant Company to analyze the facts of the case for filing the present appeal against impugned order.

        5. That though the entire record and certified copy of the impugned order was received by the Appellant Company on 11.06.2014 however same was misplaced with other files/records of the Appellant Company. The legal team and the claims team of the Appellant Company was conducting a review of all pending litigation matters across various forums in India hence the file of this matter got mixed with the files of the pending matters and The Appellant Company lost track of the matter for filing appeal as the file was misplaced.

        6. It is submitted that on receipt of execution notice on 30.09.2014, the Appellant Company verified its emails on record and found that the record file dispatched by the present Counsel to the Appellant Company was not traceable. Then the Appellant Company traced out the file with respect to the impugned order and found that till date no steps have been taken to file appeal. The Appellant immediately on 01.10.2014 instructed the present Counsel to prepare and file appeal in the matter.

        7. That after the durga puja vacations on 07.10.2014 Appellant Company provided the entire record to the present Counsel for drafting appeal.

        8. That on 16.10.2014, the present counsel prepared the appeal and sent the same to the Appellant Company for approval and signatures. The Appellant Company after verifying the facts, provided the signed appeal to the Counsel on 18.10.2014. Thereafter, the present appeal is filed on 21.10.2014.”

3.             We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the application.

4.             We find that no cogent reason has been given in the application for condonation of delay. It is admitted fact that the appellant received the copy of the impugned order on 06.06.2014 and thereafter appellant/company requested the counsel to hand over the file along with certified copy of the impugned order for analyzing the facts of the case and the same was received on 11.06.2014 whereupon the file was misplaced. Further there is admission of the appellant about receiving of the execution notice. Even after receiving the execution notice appellant was not very prompt in filing the appeal in time before the State Commission. However, the appellant appeared before the District Forum on 1.10.2014 wherein no submission was made by the appellant regarding the misplacement of file, rather it deposited the awarded amount vide cheque dated 14.10.2014. The question of misplacement of file is totally vague and seems to be a concocted story. Otherwise also appellant company failed to produce on record any email exchanged between the appellant and its counsel.

5.             Therefore there is no force in the contention of the appellant. It is well settled that sufficient cause for condoning delay in each case is a question of fact.

6.             In “R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 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”.

7.             Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that;

                “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence”.

8.             Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2013(1) CCC 910(NS) : IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)” 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 matter 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.”

9.             Observations made by Apex court and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.            In our view this is a case of gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bona fides on the part of appellant. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the long delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal. The application for condonation of delay under these circumstances is not maintainable and we dismiss the same.

11.            As the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed.

 

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

                File be consigned to record room.         

        (Justice Veena Birbal))

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member