Haryana

StateCommission

A/1105/2019

BALJEET - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

DAVINDER KUMAR

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1105 of 2019

Date of Institution:19.12.2019

Date of decision:16.01.2020

 

Baljeet S/o Rulia Ram, aged about 59 years, R/o V.P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Office, Opposite Hindu Girls College, Old Court Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Presiding Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Davinder Kumar, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

MANJULA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

 

The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint has been dismissed.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that complainant  purchased a cow, which was got insured vide tag No.129960. the insurance policy was valid from 20.10.2015 to 19.10.2018 and the sum assured was Rs.50,000/-.  Tag was inserted in the right ear of the cow.  Unfortunately, on 27.09.2017, insured cow expired.  Upon intimation, surveyor was appointed, who conducted the spot survey and gave his report dated 01.11.2017, the report observed that dead cow was not wearing tag in her ear. The complainant was holding broken tag with him.  The O.P. wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 21.11.2017. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      Notice being issued.  Opposite party filed separate written statement.  O.P. alleged that dead cow was not wearing tag in the ear. The OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 21.11.2017.    Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

4.      An application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

5.      There is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal.  The appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  59 days wherein,  it is alleged that   he is a poor man and due to paucity of fund, the appellant could not file the present appeal. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but same has occurred as mentioned above. In these circumstances there was a delay of 59 days in filing of the present appeal. Thus, delay of 59 days in filing of the present appeal be condoned.

6.      Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

7.      It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that he is a poor man and due to paucity of fund, he could not file the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per the facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional.

8.      However, contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand, there is no reasonable justification and sufficient cause.  The impugned order was passed in the presence of the parties.

9.      In these circumstances, the inordinate delay of 59 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“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 rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          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.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

10.    Since, ignorance of law regarding filing of appeal in the present case against the impugned order is no excuse, therefore, condonation of delay of 59 days in filing of the appeal cannot be allowed, thus, the application filed for condonation of delay  in appeal No.1105 of 2019 is dismissed.   

11.     Even touching the merits of the case, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that tag inserted in the right ear of the cow was broken and unfortunately, on 27.09.2017, insured cow had expired.  Upon intimation, surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report dated 01.11.2017, which reveals that dead cow was not wearing tag in her ear. 

12.    Since the tag was not inserted in the right ear of the cow, the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Learned District Forum has already dismissed the complaint of the complainant. There is no merit in the appeal. No need to interfere with the impugned order of learned District forum which was rightly decided on merits. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed in limine.

 

16th  January, 2020                                               Manjula                                                                                                                                 Presiding Member                                                             

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.