Haryana

StateCommission

A/591/2014

Raj Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Cmmercial - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.591 of 2014

                                                        Date of Institution: 10.04.2014                           Date of Decision: 24.11.2016

 

1. Smt. Raj Kumari w/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam Singh,
2. Jitender Singh minor son of Late Shri Radhey Shyam Singh,
3. Hem Lata minor daughter of Late Shri Radhey Shyam Singh

Appellants No.2 and 3 are minors through their mother and natural guardian Smt.Raj Kumar W/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam, Singh, all residents of House No. 1133, Gali No.9, Indra Nagar Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana.

…..Appellants

                                      VERSUS

1. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, command office, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala complex, Lucknow-226024 through its Manager.
2. The Regional Manager, M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, 1A/268, Neelam Bata Road, Near P.S.Kotwali, NIT, Faridabad.
3. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, D.O.4, Jeevan Bhawan, Phase I 43, Hazaratganj Lucknow through its authorized signatory.

     …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  None for the appellants.

Mr.D.K.Singhal, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. G.D.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It  was alleged by the complainants that their predecessor-in-interest Radhey Shyam Singh purchased a policy known as Sahara Rajat Yojana, covered in the Sahara Housing Scheme,  of Rs.10,000/- vide policy NO.20849202711 dated 20.12.2003.  After death his L.Rs were entitled for Rs.Two lakhs. Radhey Sham died in accident on 30.12.2007. The claim was submitted with the opposite parties (O.Ps.), but, they refused to pay the insurance amount on 07.09.2009.  Legal notice was also served upon them, but, without any result.  Hence the complaint.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting their averments and alleged that the benefit of insurance was provided free of charge and Radhey Sham (since deceased) and his nominees were not  consumer. Even otherwise the complainant’s were paid Rs.13,990/- vide cheque NO.495679 dated 15.03.2008 against full and final settlement.  So they were not having any right to file this complaint and it was time barred.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”)   came to conclusion vide impugned order dated 27.01.2014. That cause of action accrued to the complainant on 15.03.2008 when the matter was settled , but, they filed complaint on 27.10.2008 i.e. after two years and seven months and was time barred.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainants have preferred this appeal.

5.      Alongwith the appeal, appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of  130 days (in application 143 days) wherein, it is alleged that  due to poor financial condition of the family, the appellants could not arrange the funds for filing the present appeal.  In this process 143 days were consumed (as in application). Thus, delay of 130 days in filing of the present appeal be condoned.

6.      None has appeared on behalf of the appellants on four consecutive hearings.  It is already 2.50 P.M.  Counsel for the appellants did not put in appearance. This appeal is pending since the year 2014, so the arguments are being heard in the absence of the counsel for the appellants.  File perused.

7.      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.

8.      Opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed 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 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.”       

9.      Taking into account the plea raised by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 130 days in filing of the appeal. Hence, the application of the appellant is dismissed.

10.    Appeal is also not maintainable on merits. From the perusal of para No.13 (3) of the grounds of appeal, it is clear that the complainants have admitted the payment of Rs.13,990/- on 15.03.2008.  For ready reference the relevant portion of grounds of appeal is reproduced as under:-

“In this way the appellants being rustic villagers have  no knowledge about the tactics played by the respondents in the present case as they have called the appellant no.1 on dated 15.03.2008 to take the part payment in the shape of first installment of the policy amount, but in a claver manner they have paid only Rs.13,990/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- of the insured amount.”

11.    It shows that the payment was made to complainants on 15.03.2008, but, they filed this complaint on 27.10.2010.  As per section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) they were to file complaint within two years therefrom, but, they filed this complaint on 27.10.2010.  Opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (supreme court) CP) is as under:-

“Section 24A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  In other words, the consumer forums to not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.    This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24A (2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under section 24 a (1).  If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24a(2), the consumer Forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.”

          The present case is fully covered by this opinion.

12.    Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed on both counts.

 

November 24th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.