1.       This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short “the Insurance Company”) and its Branch Office at Nadia, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order, dated 26.07.2017, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/197/2017.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as hopelessly barred by limitation.   

2.       The Appeal had been filed against the order 25.01.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. CC/2015/59.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹2,43,036/- as also ₹2,000/- as litigation costs within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, with a default stipulation of interest @ 10% p.a. on the said amount.

3.       In respect of his vehicle, namely, Tata Sumo Gold, the Complainant had taken a Package Policy from the Insurance Company.  The policy was valid between the period 26.02.2013 and 25.02.2014.  On 15.12.2013, at about 9.00 p.m., the vehicle met with an accident within Nadia District. The Complainant intimated about the same to the Insurance Company, after which the vehicle was sent to an Authorized Workshop of Tata Motors, namely, T.C. Motors Pvt. Ltd.  On 23.12.2013, the Complainant submitted the claim form, along with necessary documents, with Krishnanagar Branch Office of the Insurance Company. For repairs, the Workshop had raised a bill of ₹2,43,036/-, which had been paid by the Complainant after taking loan. Vide its letter dated 11.06.2014, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that certain documents were not submitted by him.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim in question, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.   

4.       Upon notice, the Insurance Company contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version. 

5.       On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the District Forum, as noted above, allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Insurance Company.    

6.       Aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed the Appeal before the State Commission, with a delay of 355 days.  For condonation of the said delay, the Insurance Company had filed an Application with its Appeal.  In paragraphs 8 – 15 of the said Application, the Insurance Company had furnished the following explanation:

“8)     That Ld. Advocate on record, Mr. Subedi Sanyal received the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Ld. Lower Forum on 28/09/2016 and supplied the same to your petitioner’s office at Kolkata on 13/10/2016.  Though your petitioner’s consumer department is situated at Jaipur, Rajasthan at that time.

9)       That unfortunately said certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 25/01/2016 was misplaced by the concerned person at Kolkata office.

10)     On or about 20/11/2016 said certified copy of the judgment has been found by the regional office of your petitioner.

11)     Thereafter the concerned person of your petitioner’s Kolkata office sent the same to the head office of the insurance company at Jaipur for their opinion. 

12)     That thereafter your petitioner immediately appointed their panel advocate at Kolkata, Mr. Debasish Nath for the drafting of the appeal memo.

13)     That said advocate provided the draft of the appeal memo on or about 22/12/2016 but it has been noted that some important documents were not available in the claim file as the appointed advocate at Krishnanagar did not provide the copies of the entire proceedings.

14)     Thereafter your petitioner requested their panel advocate at Krishnanagar to provide the relevant documents which were filed before the Hon’ble lower Forum during the hearing of the complaint case but said lawyer did not cooperate with your petitioner and finally supplied the copies on 19/01/2017.

15)     The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to non-cooperation and unprofessionalism of said advocate practicing at Krishnanagar.”

7.       As afore-stated, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that the said explanation does not make out any sufficient cause for condonation of afore-stated delay in filing the Appeal. Consequently, the Appeal has been dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.    

8.       The short question for consideration is whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the discretion vested in it under First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal.  

9.       We have heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company on the said question.  It is trite that when a special Statute prescribes for a particular period of limitation, it has to be construed strictly and has to be observed scrupulously. As afore-noted, the State Commission has correctly followed the said golden principle.  Moreover, while deciding an application for condonation of delay, it must be borne in mind that entertainment of belated Appeals and Revisions in consumer matters after the expiry of the special period of limitation, prescribed under the Act, defeats the very object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes (See: Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578).   

10.     On facts at hand, evidently, the Insurance Company did not know what was the precise delay in filing the Appeal.  A perusal of certified copy of the impugned order shows that there was a delay of 355 days in filing the Appeal, which was sought to be explained on the basis of afore-extracted explanation.  Final order in the Complaint, wherein the Insurance Company was duly represented by its Counsel and Written Version on its behalf had also been filed, had been passed by the District Forum on 25.01.2016.  However, neither the Insurance Company nor its Counsel took note of the same for over eight months.  Evidently, both the Insurance Company and its Counsel were pursuing the said proceedings in a lackadaisical manner.  Even if there was no feedback from its Counsel, since the Insurance Company was aware of the said proceedings and had filed its Written Version in the Complaint, it was required to be vigilant and keep a watch on the said proceedings but that is not the case here.  Further, there is no indication in the Application what prompted the Counsel to obtain certified copy of the order passed by the District Forum on 28.09.2016.  Though by the said date, the Appeal, to be filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, was already barred by limitation, yet the Counsel took 15 days in supplying the said copy of the order to the Insurance Company on 13.10.2016.  As regards the plea that the said copy had been sent to Insurance Company’s Kolkata office whereas its Consumer Department was at Jaipur, Rajasthan, is immaterial vis-à-vis limitation period.  In any case, the fact remains that the copy of the said order had been sent to Insurance Company’s Kolkata Office, and the policy in question was also issued to the Complainant from the Kolkata Office. Further, in the absence of any documentary evidence, including explanation/action, if any, taken against the delinquent official, the plea that the person concerned at Kolkata Office had misplaced the said copy of the order is also not convincing.  For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the state of affairs was so, as noted by the State Commission, we fail to comprehend what prevented the Insurance Company from obtaining a duplicate copy of the said order for over a month.  On retrieval of the said copy by the person concerned in the Kolkata Office, admittedly on 20.11.2016, the Application is conspicuously silent as to the dates when the same was sent to the Office at Jaipur and when the case was assigned to the Panel Advocate at Kolkata.  Thereafter, though the said Panel Advocate had submitted the draft Appeal Memo to the Insurance Company on or about 22.12.2016, it took almost a month in obtaining the necessary documents from its Advocate at Krishnanagar, on 19.01.2017.  Insofar as the plea that delay in filing the Appeal had occurred due to non-cooperation and unprofessionalism of the Advocate at Krishnanagar is concerned, in the absence of any explanation from the said Counsel in this behalf, the stated plea does not merit acceptance. 

11.     Now, coming to the submission of Counsel for the Insurance Company that there was a delay of only three months, we find that there is no basis for limiting the delay to the that extent.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, coupled with the blank space left in para-16 of the Application, wherein the Insurance Company was required to state the number of days of delay, as noted by the State Commission in the impugned order, there was no option but to conclude that indeed there was afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.

12.     In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Insurance Company had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeal and the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the Appeal as hopelessly barred by limitation.   

13.     Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine accordingly.