1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (for short “the Insurance Company”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.11.2014, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 290 of 2014.  By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 25.03.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Shimla (for short “the District Forum”), whereby it had dismissed the Complaint Case No. 395 of 2009, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, directing the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹3,06,496/-, on account of the insurance claim, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 30.11.2009, till realization, besides ₹10,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- towards litigation expenses.     

2.       The circumstances, necessitating the filing of the Complaint, as culled out from the impugned order, are as follows:

2.1     The Complainant owned a house.  The said house along with the furniture therein was insured with the Insurance Company in the total sum of ₹10,00,000/-, for the period from 24.03.2008 to 23.03.2009.  On 31.12.2008, a fire broke out in the house of the Complainant, on account of which it was completely gutted.  At the said time, there was no furniture in the house.  While lodging report with the Police on 12.01.2009, the Complainant had also intimated the Insurance Company about the said incident.  Though the Surveyor, appointed by the Insurance Company, had assessed the loss at ₹3,06,496/-, but nothing was paid to the Complainant and the claim was repudiated. 

2.2     In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company on the said counts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for certain reliefs, mentioned in the Complaint. 

3.       Upon notice, the Insurance Company contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.    

4.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum, as noted above, dismissed the Complaint, on the ground that since the insured house had remained unoccupied for more than 30 days, as per the policy condition, cited in the order, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the loss.

5.       Aggrieved, the Complainant carried the matter further in his Appeal to the State Commission, which, as noted above, allowed the Appeal with the afore-stated directions to the Insurance Company.

6.       Hence, the present Revision Petition.

7.       It is pointed out by the Office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 351 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 3 – 7 of the said Application, the Insurance Company has furnished the following explanation:  

“3.      That the impugned judgment was pronounced by the Hon’ble State Commission on 23.12.2014 and the certified copy of the judgment was passed on 24.12.2014.  Therefore, there is a delay of ____ days in filing the accompanied Revision Petition, which is bonafide and not intentional and is due to the reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner.

4.       That the free certified copy of the judgment dated 26.11.2014 along with the covering letter of the Advocate was sent to the Regional Manager of the Petitioner Insurance Company.

5.       That the papers forwarded to the regional office which was again forwarded to the head office, after seeking legal opinion from the law officers of the Company.

6.       That the competent Authority again sought opinion from a panel lawyer on the feasibility of filing Revision before this Hon’ble Commission.  That after seeking opinion the competent authority took a decision to proceed with the filing of Revision Petition and to depute a lawyer for filing.  The case was marked by letter dated _________, the file along with the documents was received for drafting and filing of the Revision Petition.

7.       That the file was collected on _______ and the drafting was done without any further delay and the revision petition was prepared.  That revision petition was kept in the original file and the same got mixed with the disposed file by the clerk of the advocate which was kept in the room store room.  That rigorous search was made of the file but the same could not be traced.  That while searching the disposed of file for drafting the similar matter the original file was traced.  That the same was given for signatures.”   

8.       We have heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company on the question of delay.     

9.       Admittedly, the free certified copy of the impugned was issued to the Insurance Company on 24.12.2014.  Going by the same and bearing in mind the limitation period, as provided under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the Insurance Company was required to file the Revision Petition within a period of 90 days thereof.  However, despite having a battery of lawyers to advise it, the Insurance Company has filed the present Revision Petition only on 09.03.2016, with an inordinate delay of 351 days, over and above the said period.  The delay is sought to be explained on the grounds that the certified copy of the impugned order, along with a covering letter, was sent to the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company; after seeking legal opinion from the law officers, the said documents were forwarded to the Head Office; after obtaining opinion from the Advocate, it was decided by the Competent Authority to file the Revision Petition; the matter was assigned to the Advocate and the documents were sent to him for preparing the draft; the file was got mixed with disposed of files by the Clerk of the Advocate; and subsequently after rigorous search, the case-file was traced and the Revision Petition was filed.  Evidently, except for the date of issuance of the certified copy of the impugned order, the Application is conspicuously silent with respect to date-wise details, relating to the movement of the file from one stage to another.  In the absence of such details, the explanation, furnished by the Insurance Company in a routine manner, does not inspire any confidence.  Had the Insurance Company been really interested in challenging the impugned order dated 26.11.2014, whereby certain monetary liability had been fastened upon it, on receipt of free certified copy of the same on 24.12.2014, it would have been on its toes to ensure that the Revision Petition was filed within time but that was not to be.                 

10.     The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts.  In Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :

“28.    Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.  

29. In our view, it is 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 bona fide 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.”                                                      

(emphasis supplied)

11.     In view of the above, in our view, the Insurance Company has miserably failed to make out any cause, much less a sufficient cause, for condonation of inordinate delay of 351 days in filing the present Revision Petition.  Accordingly, we decline to condone the said inordinate delay.                       

12.     Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.