Punjab

StateCommission

A/93/2015

Bikramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Manaise

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

Miscellaneous Application No. 167 of 2015

in/and

First Appeal No. 93 of 2015

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 27.1.2015 

                             Date of Decision:  11.2.2015

 

Bikramjit Singh son of Puran Singh, Resident of Village Dharowali, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. New India Assurance Company, Branch Office, SCF-179-180, Jalandhar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur through its Branch Manager.
2. New India Assurance Company, Regd. Head Office, New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatama Gandi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. G.S. Manku, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No. 27 dated 1.2.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed with a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 12,11,250/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and also pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

Misc. Application No. 167 of 2015

3.                Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed to condone of delay of 229 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated that the impugned order was passed on 21.4.2014 and was received on 13.5.2014. The appellant considered the limitation as 90 days. Then he engaged the counsel at Chandigarh in second week of September, 2014 for filing of the appeal and he was asked to bring the lower court record alongwith the documents, which was supplied on 23.1.2015 and in that process, there was delay of 229 days. Limitation has been provided under the Act as 30 days to file the appeal against the order passed by the learned District Forum. No doubt that the appeal can be filed alongwith application for condonation of delay but there should be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse and cannot be considered as a sufficient ground to say that he took the period for appeal as 90 days instead of 30 days. Even otherwise in case he had engaged the counsel at Chandigarh in second week of September 2014, all the documents were with the appellant; no explanation has been given in the application what were the reasons not to supply the documents immediately and why these were supplied only on 23.1.2015. Whatever has been alleged in the application, no sufficient ground is made out. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in case “Jagmal Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Others, 2009(2) RCR (Civil)-349 (P&H)” that:-

            “Proof of sufficient cause is condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay ………….”.

4.                It is settled position that ignorance of limitation period is not a sufficient reason to condone the delay. It is held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case “National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ajmer Singh Kushwaha”, I (2012) CPJ 302 (NC) in para No. 3(relevant portion) observed as follows:-

“…Even if we agree with the version of the petitioner and count the limitation from the date of the clarificatory order of the State Commission passed on 27.9.2010 which was, according to petitioner’s own admission, received by the petitioner Company on 11.10.2010 still there is delay in filing the revision petition since the period of only 90 days is available for filing the revision petition under the law. While we are quite conscious of the fact that the Courts have to adopt a liberal and pragmatic rather than pedantic approach while construing the reasons for delay, the fact remains that the petitioner, on his part, has to explain each day’s delay with justification for that delay. In the present case, the petitioner and learned Counsel have not only failed to offer any convincing and satisfactory reasons for the delay, it appears from the submissions made before us that the petitioner has taken the condonation for granted by eating it as a mere formality. It must be appreciated that filing of revision petition within the prescribed period is the requirement under the law and unless there are adequate and convincing reasons for the delay, the same cannot be condoned. Since, we are not at all convinced with the vague and general submissions made by the petitioner in support of the delay in question, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.”

5.                It was also held by the Hon’ble National Commission in “M/s Arihant Builders & Ors. Versus  Gaurav Anand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.”, 2012(4) CPR 487 (NC) that it was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Victor Albuquerque v. Saraswat Co-operation Bank Ltd.”, AIR 1988 (Bom.) 346 that:-

“where the facts showing clear negligence of party during entire period of limitation and no sufficient cause sustained for delay in filing appeal, the delay cannot be condoned.”

6.                In view of the above position, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay, therefore, we do not see any merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.

MAIN CASE

7.                Appeal is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

8.                The arguments in the application for condonation of delay were heard on 5.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

February 11, 2015.                                                (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member