Order on Exhibit 3 - Application for Condonation of Delay
dtd 05.07.2019 by Complainant
(Passed on – 11th January, 2022)
Shri. Avinash V Prabhune, Member
Heard learned counsels for both parties & perused application/reply.
1 The complainant had filed present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on 05.07.2019 against O.P. for repudiating accident Insurance claim for Truck No MH 40 / N 5155. The complainant had also filed application for Condonation of delay on dtd 05.07.2019.
2 The complainant submitted that her deceased husband had given intimation regarding accident of insured Truck No MH 40 / N 5155 to OP & insurance claim was registered with Number 3115058946. OP repudiated insurance claim vide letter dtd 20.11.2015. Complainant’s husband expired on dt 09.4.2017. Complainant, through Advocate sent Notice dtd 17.05.2017 to OP for releasing insurance claim. Complainant contacted another advocate, for filing of complaint before Forum as earlier advocate expressed inability to pursue matter. Complainant, in December 2018, learnt about demise of said advocate to whom responsibility to file complaint was entrusted. Complainant received records from said Advocate’s office in May 2019 & filed present Complaint in July 2019, i.e. after about delay of 19 months. Complainant prayed for condoning delay of 19 months (about 590 + days delay) in filing complaint.
3 The OP strongly opposed application with preliminary objection by denying receipt of Notice dtd 07.05.2017 from Complainant. OP further submitted that insurance claim was repudiated vide letter dtd 20.11.2015, therefore, Complaint filed after period of about 4 years is barred by limitation period in view of 2 years period as provided in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. OP denied justification of the Complainant for the delay on account of transfer of case papers among the two advocates in the absence of documentary evidence on records. OP prayed for rejection of the Application for condonation of delay.
4 It is matter of records & undisputed fact that insurance claim of the Complainant was repudiated by OP vide letter dtd 20.11.2015. In fact, as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant was under legal obligation to file Consumer complaint within 2 years from the repudiation of the Insurance claim. i.e. upto Nov 2017. Complainant had filed present Complaint on dt 05.07.2019. i.e after about 44 months from repudiation of claim on dtd 20.11.2015.
5 It can be seen that Complainant’s husband expired on dt 08.04.2017. Complainant had not placed any communication (November 2015 to April 2017) with OP regarding repudiation of claim. It can be noted that Complainant had sent legal notice through advocate on dt 17.05.2017 after the death of her husband, which indicates availability of the information about repudiation of insurance claim with the Complainant. OP’s objection as regards to dispatch of Notice dtd 17.05.2017 found incorrect in view of the documentary evidence submitted by Complainant vide pursis dtd 08.01.2020 but it has no much significance. Moreover, cause of action for filing complaint arose after repudiation of insurance claim way back on 20.11.2015 by OP, it is settled position that limitation period would not be extended merely by sending Notice or effecting any communication with OP.
6 Complainant’s submissions about engaging another advocate, his demise in Oct 2018 & receiving records from the Advocates office in May 2019 indicates that Complainant was not vigilant about pursuing her matter in time bound manner. OP had strongly objected submissions of the complainant & referred it as imaginary baseless story. Moreover, Complainant had not placed any documents/ communication with advocate engaged later, therefore, OP’s objections cannot be out rightly rejected. Moreover, it can be seen that, after repudiation of claim on 20/11/2015, complainant had not exercised any communication during 44 months, i.e. till filing of Complaint, except legal notice through advocate on dt 17.05.2017.
7 Hon Supreme court & Hon NCDRC has consistently held in catena of judgments that condonation of delay applications should not be allowed routinely unless sufficient cause for the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the fora, considering the special provisions & limitations given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for expeditious disposal of the Consumer complaints/Appeals. Moreover, the rights of the other parties also cannot be ignored lightly & those cannot be punished by entertaining hugely delayed condonation applications of casual, negligent applicants.
In Ram Lal & others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.".
8 Hon Supreme Court had also observed that Special limitation periods have been prescribed under 1986, the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and the Regulations, 2005 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes.
In ‘Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported at 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 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."
9 In the instant case, Complainant had not filed any document on records to demonstrate complainant’s efforts in filing Consumer complaint within 2 years limitation period. i.e. upto Nov 2017 & thereafter, further delay of 19 months (about 590 + days). It is well recognized principle that law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. Complainant was not diligent about pursuing her matter in time bound manner. The reasons given by the complainant in the said application regarding delay in filing the complaint are not satisfactory.
10 The complaint is barred by limitation by about 19 months, (590+ days of delay) and no proper explanation has been given in the application filed by the complainant under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, on the facts of the case, the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation.
11 The present application filed by the complainant under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for condonation of delay in filing the complaint, is hereby rejected. Consequently, the complaint also stands dismissed. No orders as to Costs.
