Haryana

StateCommission

A/1052/2015

SANTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.SINGHAL

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.1052 of 2015

Date of Institution: 09.12.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 06.01.2016

 

Smt. Santra widow of Late Sh.Raju, r/o Village Kheri Sampla, District Rohtak.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Plot No.400-401-402, Delhi road, Model Town, Rohtak.

         Respondent

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Chander Shekhar Singhal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Alongwith the appeal he has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short ‘Act’) for condonation of delay of 1392 days wherein it is alleged that  she was not well aware about the legal position of the case.  Being a poor widow, she managed some amount to engage counsel. Delay is not intentional and the same may be condoned.

2.      Arguments heard. File perused.

3.      The explanation about delay is not plausible.   Learned counsel for the appellant stated that being a poor widow, she did not have any source of income and she could not arrange funds  to engage counsel in time.

4.      This ground is not plausible. 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 rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

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.”

          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 Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 held 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.”       

    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”.

5.      Taking into account the ground taken by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay, and the settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 1392 days in filing of the appeal.

6.      Hence, the application filed by the appellant is dismissed.  Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

January 06th, 2016	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member Addl.Bench
S.K