This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 03.10.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.190 & 314 of 2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant insured his tractor with the petitioner Insurance Company and the insurance was valid from 30.03.2013 to 29.3.2014. On 18.10.2013 the above said vehicle was stolen, during the night. The FIR was lodged on the next date and the Insurance Company was also informed by the Complainant. However, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 08.05.2014, in view of breach of condition No.5 of the policy read with condition No.8. The complainant filed a consumer complaint No.196 of 2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing the written statement wherein it was stated that there was a breach of condition No.5 and condition No.8 of the policy. Hence, the claim was not payable. However, the District Forum vide its order dated 13.12.2016 allowed the complaint as under:- “Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to settle and pay the claim of the complainant at 75% of the insured amount to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to submit the letter of subrogation etc. to the company for the payment of her claim.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant as well as opposite party both preferred appeal Nos.190 & 314 of 2017 respectively before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 03.10.2017 dismissed both the appeals. 4. Hence the present revision petition by the opposite party/Insurance Company. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that an investigator was appointed in the matter and he had reported that the lock set of the said tractor had been damaged after about four months of its purchase and no efforts were made by the complainant for getting damaged lockset replaced. It was also submitted by the investigator that the place of parking of the tractor was open and accessible due to damaged gate. On the basis of the investigation report the matter was repudiated. Learned counsel argued that condition No.5 is clearly applicable in the present case, which reads as under:- “Condition No.5 “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.” 6. It was further argued by the learned counsel that in fact, the investigator has asked for the key of the tractor but no key was submitted by the complainant to the investigator. Hence, it is clear that anybody can start tractor without key and this was a clear out carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainant which facilitated the theft of the tractor. In such cases, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the insurance claim on even non-standard basis. 7. It was further stated by the learned counsel that there was delay of 95 days in filing the revision petition. Learned counsel stated that the delay has occurred due to time taken in getting the legal advice first and then to obtain the instructions of the head office for filing the revision petition. The delay was not intentional and would not cause prejudice to other party if the same is condoned. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. First of all, it is seen that there is a delay of 95 days in filing the revision petition. The following has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay:- “2. That a copy of the said order was received by the counsel of the petitioner on 17.11.2017 from the Hon’ble State Commission. The counsel, somehow omitted to send the order promptly to the petitioner’s office at New Delhi with his recommendation seeking their instructions. He sent the certified copy of the order only with his letter dated 10.3.2018 which was received by the petitioner on 29.3.2018. Till this time the petitioner had no knowledge that the order has been passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on the appeal filed by it. 3. That the order was sent on Monday the 2nd April 2018 by legal Dept. of petitioner to be examined by the claims department of the petitioner with reference to the pleadings in the case to obtain their opinion if a revision is to be filed. Their response was received on 5th April 2018 recommending the filing of revision. The case file was then referred to the petitioner’s Corporate Office at Mumbai for obtaining their permission. This is the usual procedure followed by petitioner. The Corporate office advice was received on 12.4.18. The case file was then sent to the counsel on 16.4.18 for drafting the revision petitioner. The case contained several documents in Hindi vernacular and hence these documents had to be sent on 19.4.18 for translation. The translation of documents was received by the counsel on 24.4.18.” 9. From the above it is clear that the delay has been caused due to time taken in various procedural formalities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. &Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 has observed as under:- “29. In our view, it is the 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 bonafide 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. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay”. 10. From the above judgement, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the procedural delays are not to be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Special limitation periods are prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) 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.” 11. Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed; “4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s). 5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay. 6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.” 12. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Hon’ble Supreme Court 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”. 13. The above authoritative judgements are clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The negligence and deliberate inaction are clearly attributable to the petitioner in filing the present revision petition. Hence, I do not find any force in the application for condonation of delay and sufficient cause has not been shown. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 14. Now coming to merits of the case, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact in the present matter and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited in the case of concurrent finding of fact by the fora below. Both the fora below have reached to the conclusion that theft of tractor has not been denied by the investigator or the Insurance Company and the police have filed “no trace report”. District Forum has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), whereas the State Commission has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) where Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly observed that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane and the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insured has obtained comprehensive policy. The case of theft has not been found false in the averments of the Insurance Company or by the investigator and therefore these two authoritative judgements become applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (supra) the vehicle was snatched by the thieves, whereas in the present matter, the vehicle has been stolen due to negligence of the complainant himself. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (supra) is very clear that if there is comprehensive insurance policy and the vehicle is stolen then Insurance Company is liable to pay insurance claim on non-standard basis. Once the legal position has been settled by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two matters, and there is concurrent finding of fact given by the fora below, I do not find any occasion to interfere with the order of the State Commission. In such cases, the scope under the revision petition is very limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:- “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.” 15. Based on the above discussion, I find that the present revision petition is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further on merits also, I do not find any illegality material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the State Commission. Accordingly the revision petition No.1478 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. | 
