Haryana

StateCommission

A/334/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOM PARKASH SETHI - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

16 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                            First Appeal No.334 of 2016

Date of Institution:18.04.2016

                                                              Date of Decision: 16.05.2016

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Som Parkash  Sethi S/o Santram Sethi r/o # 30, Ishwer Nagar, Delhi, Owner of M/s S.S. & Co. at present Narnaul, tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh, Haryana.

2.      Shri Mohan Motors, 3^rd K.M.Stone, Naizampur road, Narnaul agent of Shri Ram General Insurance co.

                                      …..Respondents

 

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

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          As per complainant, his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-35-G 1906 met with an accident near Narnaul and he spent Rs.1,78,864/- on the repairs. The claim was repudiated by the opposite parties (O.Ps.) without any reasonable ground.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by the O.Ps. that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was under intoxication and struck against  a tree.  Complainant did not provide No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the previous owner. So his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 07.12.2015 and directed as under:-

“1.     To pay Rs.1,78,864/- to the complainant alongwith  interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges to the  complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Alongwith  this appeal,         appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 (In short “Act”) to condone the delay of 100 days (delay of 130 days mentioned in the affidavit) in filing the appeal. It is alleged that impugned order was passed on 07.02.2015 which was prepared on 09.12.2015 and was issued on 10.12.2015.  Copy of certified order was sent to the corporate office, Jaipur  on 11.12.2015 and after discussion it was decided that appeal be filed. Thereafter documents were sent to Chandigarh on 26.02.2012 for preparation of grounds of appeal which was received on 15.03.2016.  After preparation of grounds of appeal the papers were prepared but could not be signed because in the meantime branch Manager/authorised signatory resigned from Chandigarh Branch and they were signed on 15.04.2016, in this way delay was not intentional.

6.      Arguments Heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that due to resignation of Manager/authorised signatory, the delay was occurred. Even otherwise delay can be condoned because appellant’s case is good on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that as per report of surveyor dated 19.08.2011 the loss assessed by him was Rs.78,900/-.  The District Forum has granted the compensation without any basis.

8.      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.”

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”.

 

9.      Further report of surveyor was not produced before the District forum during pendency of the complaint, which was filed on 27.06.2012 and decided on 07.12.2015.  Now it cannot be alleged that District forum did not consider this report.  Had it been produced before District Forum the complainant would have been in a position to give explanation or rebut the same.  The O.Ps.  also failed to establish that the driver of the vehicle was under intoxication. From the conduct of the appellant it appears that they want to deny the relief under one pretext or the other.  The case of O.P. is also not good on merits.

10.    In view of the above discussion application filed for condonation of delay as well as appeal are dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

May 16th, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                     Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.