Tripura

StateCommission

A/10/2019

The General Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ratan Chandra Das. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Rajib Saha, Mr. Utpal Das

26 Apr 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.10.2019

 

 

1. The General Manager,

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

E-8EPIP, RIICO Sitapura, Jaipur,

Rajasthan - 302022.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

Vs

 

1. Sri Ratan Chandra Das, 

S/o Late Paresh Das,

North Kashipur, P.O. Resham Bagan,

P.S. East Agartala, District - West Tripura,

Pin: 799008.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

PRESENT

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                             Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                          Mr. Bikash Debbarma, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:        26.04.2019.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, the General Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., RIICO Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.87 of 2017 along with an application for condoning the delay of 414 days in preferring the appeal.      

2. Today is fixed for order on condonation petition.
3. Heard Mr. Rajib Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Insurance Company) as well as Mr. Bikash Debbarma, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
4. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, the condonation petition as well as the connected appeal are taken up for final disposal at this order stage itself.
5. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-  

Complainant, Sri Ratan Chandra Das is the owner of the vehicle being No.AS-02E-6576 and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. Accordingly, the vehicle was lifted from the spot of accident and was sent to Nagaon for repairing. Complainant had to spend Rs.3,69,700/- for repairing of the vehicle. Accordingly, after repairing of the said vehicle, the complainant had raised his demand to the opposite party-Insurance Company, but the opposite party-Insurance Company settled the claim for Rs.39,468/- only. Being not satisfied with the awarded amount, the complainant filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum.

6. The opposite party-Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated in the written statement that the surveyor of the Insurance Company conducted the survey and assessed the damage. According to the recommendation of the surveyor, the loss incurred by the insured-complainant was of Rs.39,508/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
7. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint petition to the extent as observed in Paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment which is as follows:-

“7. We have gone through the mechanical Inspection Report submitted by the petitioner. As per mechanical report brake assembly was serviceable. But Jalil body construction replaced brake, steering line assembly. As per mechanical report Bumper, wind screen, head lights, bonnet, Cap, radiator, doors, body damaged. For the damage of the 7 items we consider that on proper assessment by the surveyor the Insurance company could award Rs.1,40,000/-. But Insurance company without appointing any surveyor only offered Rs.39,400/-. This is deficiency of service. Petitioner could repair the vehicle in Tripura nearer to the place of accident so he is not entitled to get any transportation charge.  For the deficiency of service petitioner suffered and he is entitled to get compensation Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), for litigation cost Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). Petitioner in total is entitled to get Rs.1,55,000/- for the damage of the vehicle. We therefore, direct the O.P. Insurance company to pay Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Five Thousand) to the petitioner. Payment is to be made within one month if not paid will carry interest @9% P.A.”  

8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Forum, the opposite party-Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal along with a condonation petition as stated (supra).
9. Mr. Saha, Ld. Counsel while urging for condoning the delay would contend that the delay took place due to following the official procedure. Thus, such delay cannot be considered as an intentional one. He finally submits that the delay has been properly explained, therefore, the same may be condoned.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Debbarma, Ld. Counsel while opposing the prayer for condoning the delay of 414 days submits that though the judgment was delivered on 04.01.2018, but the copy of the said judgment was received on 16.01.2018 by the Ld. Counsel of the opposite party-Insurance Company and thereafter, the opposite party took time for following the official procedure which will be evident from Paragraph-7, 8 and 9 of the instant petition. He has again submitted that for following the official procedure initially the opposite party took time near about 8 (eight) months and even they did not mention as and when the Demand Draft was lost in transit. He has finally contended that even thereafter also, they have taken almost another 4 (four) months to prepare the subsequent draft for preferring the appeal.
11. We have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and also gone through the contention made in the condonation petition. From the condonation petition it appears that though the copy of the impugned judgment was received by the Ld. engaged Counsel of the appellant-opposite party on 16.01.2018, the said copy reached at Jaipur on 29.01.2018 and the demand draft amounting to Rs.25,000/- was sent to the address of the Ld. engaged Counsel on 25.08.2018. Meaning thereby, almost 7 (seven) months took for sending the demand draft and when the said demand draft was lost in transit, that is also not mentioned and the subsequent demand draft was sent almost after 4 (four) months to the Ld. engaged Counsel which will be evident from Paragraph-13 of the condonation petition. The opposite party-Insurance Company is not a simple rustic litigant that they did not know the consequences of the period of limitation prescribed by law. The opposite party-Insurance Company has their legal wing and empanelled lawyer and very much aware about the consequences of period of limitation prescribed by law. The grounds which have been taken up by the opposite party-Insurance Company are nothing but following the official procedure and that is also not clearly mentioned as to how and when the different offices received the impugned judgment. Regarding the loss of demand draft, in Paragraph-11 of the petition, it is mentioned that the demand draft was sent on 25.08.2018 to the Ld. engaged Counsel, but it is not mentioned that when it came to notice that the demand draft was lost in transit. Even if we consider that the demand draft was lost in the month of August, 2018, then also, about another 6 (six) months took for preparing the subsequent draft which itself shows that the opposite party-Insurance Company was not eager to file the appeal within a reasonable time with proper explanation.
12. In Basawaraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No.6974 of 2013) the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed about the ‘sufficient cause’ which is as follows:-
    1. Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629.)”
13. In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Ghanshyam Bansal, 2000 3 CPJ 315, the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decided a condonaiton petition almost on similar grounds as mentioned by the complainant in the instant petition. From Paragraph-6 and 7 of the said Report it would be evident that the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission while deciding the condonation petition before it has also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276. For ready reference Paragraph-6 and 7 of the  Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (supra) are quoted hereunder:-

“6. The present appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days prescribed in terms of Section 15 of the Act. The impugned order was passed on 27.7.1999 and duly received by the appellant on 29.7.1999, whereas, the present appeal has been filed only on 18.10.1999. The reasons assigned by the appellant for the delay in filing the present appeal are stated in the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. On perusing the same, it comes to fore, that the certified copy of the impugned order after being received on 29.7.1999, was put up before the AGM (Legal) after 20 days on 19.8.1999, who after over a week forwarded the same to AGM, Legal (HQ) on 27.8.1999. Thereafter, the said file with the impugned order was put up before the Joint General Manager (Legal) after a lapse of over a month on 4.10.1999. Further, though the file reached the concerned Counsel for the appellant on 8.10.1999, the appeal was actually filed on 18.10.1999, i.e. after a delay of further 10 days. The above narration itself reveals the total apathy and laches on the part of the officials of the appellant MTNL which in no way can be termed as ‘sufficient cause’ so as to call for our indulgence in condoning the delay of about 47 days.

7. We are fortified in our above view by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported as AIR 1998 SC 2276. In the abovesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

“The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one, had been offered by the respondent-State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days.

Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained.”

And the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Jammu and Kashmir v. Smt. Ram Kali, reported as AIR 1987 Jammu and Kashmir 71, while considering the question whether the norms for condonation of delay should be different for Government or a Statutory Body as compared to an individual, has held :

“The delay in this case has accrued as the matter was referred to the Law Department and the office of the Executive Engineer, Chenani Hydel Project who is dealing with the case and the Government Office such as, Law Department, etc. were also at Srinagar and the matter being in rotation through proper channels took time.

In our opinion, the abovesaid explanation without mentioning the specific days and the reason for delay explaining each day of delay is no cause at all much less as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the revision or an appeal within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We are, therefore, in full agreement with the ratio of the authority of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, AIR 1973 AP 43 (supra), and hold that no exception is made for the Government in the matter of condonation of delay which is not satisfactorily explained in terms of the Act.”    

14. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue pertaining to condonation of delay observed as follows:-

“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.”

Again in Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts /Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute(s).

5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay”.

In the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has highlighted that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay the Court must bear in mind the object of expeditious disposal of consumer dispute which would get defeated if the Court was to entertain highly belated petitions.”

15. We have considered the cause of delay as explained by the opposite party-Insurance Company in their condonation petition as well as the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties. There is no doubt that 'sufficient cause' though deserves to receive a liberal approach, but at the same time a court of law has to maintain a just and equitable balance between the right secured by the complainant as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellants of adjudication of their grievances on merits of their appeal for causes beyond their reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellants. There is no hard and fast rules, what should be the 'sufficient cause' in a given case. What should be the ‘sufficient cause’ has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above. Insurance Company is not a rustic litigant or an ignorant about the period of limitation as the Insurance Company approached various Consumer Foras as well as this Commission in various matters.
16. The contention of the opposite party-Insurance Company that the delay caused due to departmental involvement and decision making process cannot be a sufficient ground to condone the delay. Delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity, rather there is proff of sufficient cause, discretion for condonation of delay cannot be exercised. According to us, all these explanations as stated in the condonation petition are only to eye wash the mind of this Commission.
17. We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party-Insurance Company acted in such a manner for preferring appeal which is nothing but mere negligence and not beyond their control, rather the opposite party-Insurance Company sat over the matter for almost 13 months towards following the official procedure.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the opposite party-Insurance Company failed to explain the delay properly in preferring the connected appeal. The only reasons stated for causing delay is the departmental involvement, which cannot be a ground for condoning the delay as stated (supra).

In the result, the prayer for condonation as sought for is rejected and consequent thereto, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura