Haryana

StateCommission

A/956/2014

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Satyawanti - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No. 956 of 2014

Date of Institution: 20.10.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 25.01.2017

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., through Amit Chawla, Manager Legal Claims and authorized signatory of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 145-146, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Satyawanti W/o Sh.Paras Ram.

2.      Paras Ram S/o Sh.Zile Singh

          Both residents of Shyam Colony, Near Jind Railway Crossing, Rohtak Tehsil and District Rohtak.

3.      The Reliance Web World store Ltd., through its Manager SCO No.135-136, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

4.      Reliance Web World, through its officer Incharge/Manager,Delhi road, Model Town, Rohtak.

        …..Respondents

 

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

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Clerk of Mr.T.K.Joshi, Advocate counsel for the  appellant.

                   Mr.Robin Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                   Mr. D.K.Singhal, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

 

Appeal No.73 of 2015

Date of institution:- 21.01.2015

Date of Decision:- 25.01.2017

1.      Smt. Satyawanti W/o Sh.Paras Ram.

2.      Paras Ram S/o Sh.Zile Singh

          Both residents of Shyam Colony, Near Jind Railway Crossing, Rohtak Tehsil and District Rohtak.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Reliance Web World, store Ltd., through its Manager SCO No.135-136, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2.      Reliance Web World, through its officer Incharge/Manager, Delhi road, Model Town, Rohtak.

3.      Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Plot NO.400-401-402, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak.

…..Respondents.

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

                              Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-             Mr. Robin Singh, Advocate counsel for the   appellant.

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

Clerk of Mr.T.K.Joshi, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this order above mentioned two appeals bearing Nos.956 of 2014 and 73 of 2015 will be disposed off as they have been preferred against the order dated 20.05.2014 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum, Rohtak (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.         Alongwith appeal No.73 of 2015 an application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”) for condonation of delay of  225 days.  It is alleged therein that when they received notice issued in appeal No.956 of 2014 they came to know that they were also having remedy to file appeal before this Commission. Thereafter they engaged present counsel on 19.01.2015 and filed appeal. In this process 225 days were spent. Thus, delay of 225 days in filing of the present appeal may be condoned.

2.         Arguments Heard. File perused.

3.         Learned counsel for appellants in appeal No.73 of 2015 vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal was not intentional and same may be condoned.

4.         This argument is of no avail. ,,The explanation given in the application is not plausible. The appellants knew about the decision of the complaint since very beginning.   They were represented by counsel there and he must have told about  limitation and process for filing appeal.   The plea raised by them seems  to  be  after     thought version. The appellants have raised this plea just to cover inordinate delay.

5.         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.

6.         The inordinate delay of 225 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          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.”

          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.”       

    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”.

Taking into consideration the plea raised by appellants for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, it is not fit case to condone delay of 225 days in filing appeal. Hence, application filed for condonation of delay is dismissed.

8       It was  alleged  by complainants that their predecessor-in- interest Balkar Singh (since deceased) purchased three post paid connections from opposite party No.2 as detailed below:-

          “I       MDN Number               9315417236

                   RSN Number               RLGHS1017554359

                   The OTAF date            11/18/2006, 11:20:04 A.M.

          ii        MDN Number               9315417327

                   RSN Number               RJPHSC010132389

                   The OTAF date            11/18/2006, 11:17:01 A.M.

          iii       MDN Number               9315417328

                   RSN Number               RLGHS1017554484

                   The OTAF date            11/18/2006, 11:14:50 A.M.”

Those connections were obtained under scheme of personal accident insurance cover of Rs.Five lacs each and were inforce from 01.11.2006 to 30.11.2006.  After his death information was given to O.P.No.2 and claim was submitted after completing all the formalities. When there was no response from O.Ps. notice dated 02.08.2007 was also sent, but, even thereafter their request was not adhered to.

9.      O.Ps. filed separate replies. O.P.- Reliance Webstores Ltd. alleged that insurance policies provided with aforesaid connections were to be enforced from first day of next month from date of obtaining and not from the date of obtaining connection. In this case Balkar Singh (since  deceased) obtained three connections on 18.11.2006 and policies were to be enforced from 01.12.2006, but, he died on 20.11.2006 and at that time insurance policies were not enforced.  When there was no insurance policy, complainants were not  entitled for any compensation. They never got alleged pamphlet printed. Objections about territorial jurisdiction, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the compliant.

10.    In addition to O.P.NO.3 also alleged that they were never informed about the death as alleged by complainants.  They did not submit claim alongwith any proof as alleged by them.  They were not covered by the definition of “Consumer” as provided under section 2(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”). Neither they were having any locus standi to file this complaint nor it was maintainable.  They were not entitled for Rs.15/- lacs as alleged by them.  Objections about limitation, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

11.    After hearing both the parties learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 20.05.2014 and directed as under:-

“In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions it is observed that opposite party NO.3 shall pay a sum of Rs.500000/- (Rupees Five lac only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 31.10.2007 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainants maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the amount of award shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision till its realization. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

12.    Feeling aggrieved therefrom both the parties have preferred these aforesaid appeals.   

13.    In appeal No.956 of 2014 it is alleged by the insurance company that when policies were not in force on the date of death, claimants are not entitled for compensation.

14.    In appeal No.73 of 2015 it is alleged by the complainants that they were entitled not only for Rs.five lacs but were entitled for Rs.15/- lacs because each policy was of Rs.Five lacs.

15.    Arguments heard. File perused.

16.    Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued that from the perusal of Ex.P-5 it is clear that scheme period started from 01.11.2006 to 30.11.2006.  It means that if any one has purchased policy in between  that period then he is entitled for the compensation of Rs.five lacs for each connection.  This advertisement was issued by O.Ps. From the perusal of Ex.R-2 to R-4 it is clear that he obtained these connections on 18.11.2006, whereas he expired on 20.11.2006 as mentioned in death certificate Ex. P-6.  Learned District Forum has granted compensation qua one connection only whereas they are entitled for Rs.15/- lacs in total i.e. Rs. Five lacs for each connection.  Learned District Forum rightly placed reliance upon the opinion of Uttaranchal State Commission, Dehradun expressed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neerja Rani Sharma 2005 (3) CPJ 341  wherein it is opined that if terms and conditions of insurance policy are not supplied they are not binding upon insured, so their appeal be allowed and appeal filed by insurance company be dismissed.

17.    Firstly, it is to be seen whether they are entitled for the compensation or not.  It is no-where proved on the file that pamphlet Ex.P-5 was printed by O.Ps.  Even if, presumption is drawn to this effect it cannot be opined that insurance policy came into force on 18.11.2006. As per pamphlet this scheme was available to the connections obtained in between 01.11.2006 to 30.11.2006.  It is no where mentioned therein that the insurance policy will come into force moment the connection is obtained.  It is opined time and again that the insurance policy will come into force from the date of effectiveness and not previously.  In the present case when insurance policies Ex.R-5 to R-7 were issued, it was specifically mentioned therein that period of insurance was from 01.12.2006 to 30.11.2007.  It shows that when Balkar Singh died, insurance policy was not in existence.  When policies were not enforce on the date of death, complainants cannot ask for any compensation.  Had it been mentioned in cover notes Ex. R-2 to R-4 that insurance policy is effective from that very date then it could have been a different matter.

18.    More so, it cannot be presumed that terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure A are not be applicable in their case on the ground that they were not supplied to them at the time of obtaining connection because there is recital on proposal forms that insured went through terms and conditions of the insurance policy. When the policy was not existing on the date of death complainants were not entitled for any compensation. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration these aspects and wrongly allowed complaint as per opinion expressed in Oriental insurance Vs. Neerja Rani Sharma’s case (supra)  because in that case applicability of terms and conditions of policy was discussed and not about enforcement of policy, as mentioned above.  So impugned order dated 20.05.2015 is set aside. Appeal bearing No. 956 of 2014 filed by insurance company is allowed and appeal No.73 of 2015 filed by LR’s of Balkar Singh is dismissed on merits as well as limitation.

19.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.956 of 2014 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

20.    The original judgement be attached with appeal No.956 of 2014 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.73 of 2015.

 

January 25th, 2017                 Urvashi Agnihotri,                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                  Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.