Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/24/1126

MOHANLAL S/O LT SHIVPRASAD AHIRVAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPESH SHUKLA

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1125 OF 2024

(Arising out of order dated 28.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.242/2013 by District Commission, Narmadapuram)

 

MOHANLAL.                                                                                                          …       APPELLANT

 

                     Versus

 

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.& BRANCH

MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA.                                                            …         RESPONDENTS.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 OF 2024

(Arising out of order dated 28.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.243/2013 by District Commission, Narmadapuram)

 

MOHANLAL.                                                                                                          …       APPELLANT

 

                     Versus

 

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.& BRANCH

MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA.                                                            …         RESPONDENTS.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127 OF 2024

(Arising out of order dated 28.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.244/2013 by District Commission, Narmadapuram)

 

MOHANLAL.                                                                                                          …       APPELLANT

 

                     Versus

 

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.& BRANCH

MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA.                                                            …         RESPONDENTS.

 

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK       :      PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

 

26.09.2024

 

     Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

     Shri Ajmal Tirmizi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

     None for the respondent no.2.

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik:

                       Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA-1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeals.

-2-

2.                This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid First Appeal Nos.1125, 1126 & 1127 of 2024 as they are similar in nature. For sake of convenience, facts have been taken from First Appeal No. 1125/2024.

3.                This appeal by the complainant/appellant (for short 'complainant') arises out of the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narmadapuram (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.242/2013 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint.

4.                As per office report, this appeal is barred by one month and 12 days, however, from the record I find that the appeal against the order dated 28.02.2023 has been filed on 27.05.2024 i.e. after one year, one month and 12 days. In IA-1, the undated application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit dated 28.05.2024, reasons assigned are that the District Commission passed an order on 28.02.2023, however, the previous counsel of the complianant never collected the certified copy of the order nor did he intimate the complainant about the existence of such order.  After warning the previous counsel of adverse action against the previous counsel, the application for second copy of the order was made which was prepared on 08.02.204 and was received on 09.02.2024. It is further mentioned in the said application that from 09.02.2024, there is delay of only 61 days from the date of expiry of limitation and the said

-3-

delay is unintentional and is a bonafide mistake of the complainant, as the complainant is a poor villager and is not well-versed with the laws of the land.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there was no malafide intention in filing the appeal belated. The appellant has shown reasons for the delay caused, in the application for condonation of delay. He argued that the delay occured as the complainant was not knowing that such an order was passed and it is only when he came to know, he immediately applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 08.02.2024 and got the same on 09.02.2024. He argued that on this account the delay is bonafide. He therefore prayed for allowing the application for condonation of delay.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-insurance company argued that there is inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. He submitted that during hearing of the case the complainant never turned up before the District Commission. He argued that despite his non-appearance the District Commission has dismissed the complaint on merits. He therefore prayed for dismissing the appeal.

7.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record of the District Commission I find that the complainant had earlier filed the complaint before the District Commission which was

-4-

dismissed by the District Commission as barred by limitation vide order dated 12.11.2014. Against the said order, the complainant had preferred First Appeal No.48/2015. This Commission vide order dated 02.09.2022, in the presence of all parties through their counsel remanded the matter to the District Commission with direction that the District Commission shall decide the question of limitation afresh and if the District Commission finds that the complaint is within limitation, it shall decide the complaint on merits. Also Parties were directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.10.2022. 

8.                On going through the record, I find that since 10.10.2022 till the date of disposal of the complaint i.e. 28.02.2023 neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the District Commission. Despite that the District Commission instead of dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution decided the same on its merits. From the office noting on the ordersheet in the record of the District Commission, I find that free certified copy of the impugned order was also sent to the complainant by post. Therefore the reason assigned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal that the previous counsel of the complainant never collected the certified copy of the order nor did he intimate the complainant cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant received the copy of order dated 02.09.2022 of this Commission whereby

-5-

the parties were directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.10.2022 but no one appeared for the complainant from 10.10.2022 till 28.02.2023. He ought to have appeared before the District Commission, but he failed.

9.                Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is relevant to mention, wherein it has been mentioned that in case any party is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission, the appeal can be filed against the said order to the State Commission within a period of 45 days from the date of order. Further it has been mentioned that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after expiry of period of 45 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within the period of limitation.

10.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwarl Vs New Okhala Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has categorically held that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters.

11.              On going through the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra) I find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if

-6-

Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of Consumer Fora. Hon'ble National Commission in FA/1678/2019 (Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs Arun Kumar Bansal) decided on 12 July, 2024, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal (supra) has taken a same view.

12.              In view of the foregoing discussion, no case is made out to condone the huge delay of more than one year. In the present case, delay has not been properly explained as no convincing reasons are mentioned. In such circumstances, I decline to condone the delay.  

13.              In view of the aforesaid the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the aforesaid appeals are hereby dismissed as barred by limitation with no order as to costs.

14.              This order be retained in First Appeal No.1125/2024 and a copy be placed in First Appeal Nos. 1126 and 1127 of 2024.

                                                                  

                                                                                    (Dr. Monika Malik)

                                                                      Presiding Member