Haryana

StateCommission

A/312/2017

DEVINDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SUDHIR RANA

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 312 of 2017

Date of Institution: 17.03.2017

Date of Decision : 31.08.2017

 

Devinder son of Beni Parshad, resident of House No.FCA-586, Fast Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company, 1-A/269, Second Floor, Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad.

          Also at Plot No.6, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (through its Manager/Branch Head).

2.      Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, A-27, Nehru Ground, First Floor, NIT, Faridabad.

          Also at Plot No.6, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (through its Manager/Branch Head).

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Sudhir Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

         

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          Devinder-complainant (appellant) is in appeal against the order dated May 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 271 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in paragraph No.2 of the application is as under:-

“2.     That the appeal could not be filed within limitation as appellant was not aware about the limitation period.  The appellant after enquiring from his counsel of learned Forum that till when and how appellant came to know that the limitation of appeal is 30 days, which has already been expired.  Thereafter, without any further delay the appellant engaged the present counsel and filed the present appeal.....”

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances mentioned above.

4.      This Commission has considered the submission made on behalf of the complainant. The explanation for the delay caused in filing of the appeal is vague and far from being satisfactory.

5.      By now 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.

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2),Scale 108, has held that “We hold that 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.      In Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 it has been 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.”

8.      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.

9.      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.

10.    The ground taken in the application 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 271 days.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

11.    Even on merits, there is no force in the instant appeal.  The complainant purchased the tractor on November 16^th, 2012.  It was stolen on the intervening night of January 03^rd/04^th, 2013.  Admittedly, the complainant did not get the tractor registered after fifty days of its purchase.  It was being driven without any valid registration as contemplated under the provisions of Section 39 and 43 of Motor Vehicles Act. In Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on September 4^th, 2014 vehicle was granted temporary registration for one month, which expired on January 11^th, 2016.  The vehicle met with an accident on February, 02^nd, 2016, that is, after 22 days on expiry of temporary registration. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy contract.

12.    In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, limitation as well as on merits.

 

 

Announced 31.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK