RP 1472 OF 2018  (PRONOUNCED ON 03.12.2018)

C.VISWANATH

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 600/2016 dated 14.07.2017.

    

2. According to the Respondent/Complainant, State of Haryana started a welfare scheme called Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojana, for providing financial aid to the family of persons who died or get permanently disabled due to various accidents like rail/road etc. or due any other unnatural event.Government of Haryana paid the premium for the same.A Memorandum of Understanding was executed with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it was agreed that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. will compensate the legal heirs of the earning member in the family who died accidentally to the extent of Rs. 1 Lakh. The son of the Respondent was working in a shop of iron works and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month. On 30.05.2011, he alongwith his friend while going on motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR-12K-7466, was hit by a truck at Jind Bye-pass Chowk, Rohtak due to which he suffered injuries and ultimately died. Post-mortem was conducted vide PMR No. 301/GH/11 dated 31.05.2011 and a case/FIR was registered. The Respondent alongwith all the relevant documents approached Petitioner No.3 and applied for claim under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojana vide Claim No. 17681412. He was, despite several requests, not paid any insurance amount.Hence, Complaint was filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners.

    

3. The Complaint was contested by the Petitioners in the District Forum contending that the income of the Respondent’s family from all sources, as verified by Tehsildar, Rohtak, was Rs.327372/- per annum. As per Haryana Government Notification, persons whose gross annual income from all sources exceeded Rs.250000/- were excluded from the scheme.In the instant case, the annual income of the Respondent’s family from all sources was Rs.32,7372/- which exceeded the limit fixed by the Government. Hence, the Respondent was denied the claim under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojana and was intimated about the same vide letter dated 17.04.2013.

    

4. District Forum, vide order dated 15.07.2015, allowed the Complaint on the ground that the income certificate produced by the Opposite Party is dated 04.04.2014 and the same is merely a photocopy and is not supported with any affidavit, whereas the income of the Complainant as per income certificate dated 03.06.2015, is Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, which is an original certificate issued by the SDO(C) Rohtak.Hence the document produced by the Opposite Party is not valid.As such the repudiation of claim by the Opposite Parties is not tenable and the Complainant is entitled for the claim under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojana from Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 on account of death of her son, Ashok Kumar.

    

5. The Petitioners were directed to pay Rs.100000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present Complaint i.e. 04.09.2013 till its actual realization as also Rs.2500/- towards litigation expenses to the Respondent within one month from the date of decision, failing which the Petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of the decision.

    

6. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 14.07.2017, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioners on the ground of limitation. The Petitioners had filed an application to condone the delay of 325 days which was dismissed on the ground of insufficient cause for condonation of delay. The State Commission observed as under:-

   “By now it is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

    

   Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

    

   “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 right must explain every day’s delay.”

    

   The grounds taken in the application are a sad commentary on the working of the employees of the appellants and these grounds are manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such grounds as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 325 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.”

    

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission,the Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition on the following grounds among others:-

8. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that Respondent is not a Consumer as it does not fall under the preview of sub-section 2(O) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the service provided by the Petitioner is free of chargeand as per sub-section 2(d) Consumer is a Person who hire or avails any service for consideration.

9. The Respondent has failed to submit the cause of death of deceased which was required to decide the claim of the Respondent.

10. The Ld. State Commission has failed to appreciate that when it comes to filing by the State, the courts are expected to adopt a more flexible approach and grant condonation of delays which are not huge or unconscionable.

     

11. The Petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the present Revision Petition.I.A. 9988 of 2018 has been filed by the Petitioner stating that the case was processed at various levels and necessary opinion and approval of the authorities were taken. The Approval from Ld. Advocate General Haryana Chandigarh was received on 29.08.2017. L.R. Haryana instructions were received on 16.11.2017. Departmental permission for filing Revision Petition was issued vide Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Haryana, Panchkula on 19.03.2018. Subsequently, it took time to assign the panel lawyer and the file the instant Revision Petition. In view of the reasons stated, the delay be condoned.

     

12. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. He reiterated the arguments as already stated above. We have also very carefully perused the records.The Petitioners filed Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 325 days without giving sufficient reasons and the State Commission has elaborately discussed the matter and given a reasoned order. The Petitioners have approached this Commission also with a delay of 191 days without giving a sufficient cause.

     

13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority” [2012(2) CPC (SC)] observed as under:-

    “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 the 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.”

     

14. In “R. B. Ramalingam Vs. R. B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108”, the Apex Court has observed thus:-

    “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”

     

15. In “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, it has been observed:-

    “It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the 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.”

     

16. There has been an inordinate delay in getting approvals at various levels and day to day delay has not been properly explained by the Petitioner.No sufficient ground has been shown for seeking condonation of delay of 191 days before this Commission.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for speedy redressal of consumer disputes.It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons supported by material. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain this Revision Petition.

     

17. Hence, IA No. 9988/2018 is dismissed.Consequently, the present Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

RP 1473 OF 2018  (PRONOUNCED ON 04.12.2018)

C.VISWANATH

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 601/2016 dated 14.07.2017.

    

2. According to the Respondent/Complainant, State of Haryana starteda welfare scheme called Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojana for providing financial aid to the family of persons who died or get permanently disabled due to various accidents like rail/road etc. or due to any other unnatural event. Government of Haryana paid the premium for the same. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it was agreed that Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. will compensate the legal heirs of the earning member in the family who died accidentally, to the extent of Rs. 1 Lakh. The husband of the Respondent (Sh. Suresh Kumar) was doing agriculture work and was the only bread earner in the family. On 26.02.2011, he met with an accident with a Tractor due to which he suffered injuries and ultimately died.  Post-mortem of the husband of the Respondent was conducted vide PMR No. 102/GH/11 dated 27.02.2011 and his visra was also sent to FSL Madhuban and no poison was detected. It was found that the death was due to an accident. The Respondent approached the Petitioners, alongwith all relevant documents and made claim under the Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojana.  Despite repeated requests, Petitioners have not paid the insurance claim to the Respondent. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners.

    

3. The Complaint was contested by the Petitioners in the District Forum on the ground that the income of the Respondent exceeded the limit of Rs.2,50,000/- and, therefore, the Respondent was not a beneficiary of the Scheme.The Respondent was not entitled to get the claim amount under the said scheme.

    

4. District Forum, vide order dated 13.07.2015, allowed the Complaint on the ground that Petitioners have failed to prove that the deceased was under the influence of alcoholic drinks and drugs as in the report of FSL also, no intoxication by alcohol or poison was detected.

5. The Petitioners were directed to pay the Respondent Rs.100000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present Complaint, till its actual realization as also Rs. 2500/- litigation expenses within one month from the date of decision failing which the Petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.

    

6. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the Respondent. The State Commission, vide order dated 14.07.2017, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioners on the ground of limitation. The petitioners had filed an application to condone the delay of 327 days which was dismissed on the ground of insufficient cause for condonation of delay. The State Commission observed as under:-

   “By now it is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

    

   Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

    

   “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 right must explain every day’s delay.”

    

   The grounds taken in the application are a sad commentary on the working of the employees of the appellants and these grounds are manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such grounds as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 325 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.”

    

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission,the Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition on the following grounds, among others:-

8. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that Respondent is not a Consumer as it does not fall under the preview of sub-section 2(O) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the service provided by the Petitioner is free of chargeand as per sub-section 2(d) Consumer is a Person who hire or avails any service for consideration.

9. The Respondent has failed to submit the cause of death of deceased which was required to decide the claim of the Respondent.

10. The Ld. State Commission has failed to appreciate that, when it comes to filing by the State, the Courts are expected to adopt a more flexible approach and grant condonation of delays which are not huge or unconscionable.

     

11. The Petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition.I.A. 9989 of 2018 has been filed by the Petitioner stating that the case was processed at various levels and necessary opinion and approval of the authorities were taken. The Approval from Ld. Advocate General Haryana Chandigarh was received on 29.08.2017. L.R. Haryana instructions were received on 16.11.2017. Departmental permission for filing Revision Petition was issued vide Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Haryana, Panchkula on 19.03.2018. Subsequently, it took time to assign the panel lawyer and the file the instant Revision Petition. In view of the reasons stated, the delay be condoned.

     

12. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. He reiterated the arguments as already stated above. We have also very carefully perused the records.The Petitioners filed Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 327 days without giving sufficient reasons and the State Commission has elaborately discussed the matter and given a reasoned order. The Petitioners have approached this Commission also with a delay of 191 days without giving sufficient cause.

     

13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority” [2012(2) CPC (SC)] observed as under:-

    “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 the 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.”

     

14. In “R. B. Ramalingam Vs. R. B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108”, the Apex Court has observed thus:-

    “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”

     

15. In “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, it has been observed:-

    “It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the 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.”

     

16. There has been an inordinate delay in getting approvals at various levels and day to day delay has not been properly explained by the Petitioner.No sufficient ground has been shown for seeking condonation of delay of 191 days before this Commission.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for speedy redressal of consumer disputes.It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons supported by material. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain this Revision Petition.

     

17. Hence, IA No. 9989/2018 is dismissed. Consequently, the present Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.