Haryana

StateCommission

A/158/2018

REENA YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

V.K. TRIPATHI

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal    No  :      158 of 2018

Date of Institution  :      06.02.2018 

                                                Date of Decision    :    21.03.2018 

  

Reena Yadav wife of Arun Yadav, resident of House No.103, Ward No.2, Ahirwara Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (Haryana).

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, 1652D, Kathnadi, Rewari.

 

2.      The General Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai -400001.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                

 

                                                                            

Argued by :         Shri V.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant.

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Reena Yadav-complainant (appellant herein) is in appeal against the order dated November 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 416 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in the application is as under:-

          “2.     That the impugned order was passed on November 17^th, 2016.  But the earlier counsel before the learned District Forum never intimated about the fate of the case to the appellant and even the appellant kept in touch with the said counsel.  Only in the last week of January, 2018, the said counsel informed the appellant that her complaint was dismissed on November 17^th, 2016 and then the appellant obtained the copy of the impugned order on January 25^th, 2018 and engaged the present counsel to file the appeal against the said impugned order.  Hence there is a delay of 416 days in filing the appeal which is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above.”

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.

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

5.      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 Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has 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.”

7.      In Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors versus Janak Singh & anr, IV(2014) CPJ 36 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-

“8.      In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 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.”

8.        In GGS Fast Food & Banquet Through Its Director Shri Vipul Garg Vs. S.C. Jain, 2017 LawSuit (CO) 261, decided on February 09^th, 2017, Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi has observed as under:-

          “[11] In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we have also kept in mind the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 14 SCC 578, to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, particularly when in the first instance the Petitioner had not challenged the finding recorded by the District Forum, holding him deficient in rendering services to the Complainant.”

9.      Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect  of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that   they    do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same   time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.”       

 10.   In view of law enunciated 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 ground taken in the application is manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency. To accept such grounds 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 416 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed on the ground of limitation.

         

 

 

 

Announced 21.03.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK