Tripura

StateCommission

A/43/2018

Relaince Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Biplab das - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Dibyendu Sarkar, Mr. Mirza Aslam Beg

15 May 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.43.2018

 

1. Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai, Maharastra -400710.

 

Represented by the Branch Manager,

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Udaipur Branch, Ground Floor of SBI Building,

P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

 

Vs

 

1. Sri Biplab Das,

S/o Narayan Das,

Village - Lowgang, Bakafa,

P.S. Santirbazar (Near ICDS, Lowgang South),

Santirbazar, South Tripura.

… … … … 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. Dibyendu Sarkar, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                           Mr. Braja Gopal Bhaumik, Adv. &

Mrs. Sibali Shil (Sarma), Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:         15.05.2019.

 

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

 

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), Gomati, Udaipur in Case No.C.C.18 of 2016 along with an application for condoning the delay of 99 days in preferring the appeal. The learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the respondent herein, holding, inter alia, that “the OP No.1 Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited shall pay the assured sum of the policy amounting to Rs.4,57,900/- (Rupees Four Lac Fifty-seven Thousand Nine Hundred) (Reliance Endowment Plan, Policy No.-51564404 of policy holder Mira Das) to the complainant Sri Biplab Das, nominee made by the policy holder. The assured amount of policy shall carry interest as penalty @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. from 28.07.2016 till the date of payment.” Opposite party no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.      

2. Today is fixed for order on condonation petition.
3. Heard Mr. Dibyendu Sarkar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1/Insurance Company) as well as Mr. Braja Gopal Bhaumik, Ld. Counsel assisted by Mrs. Sibali Shil (Sarma), Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-  

Respondent-complainant, Sri Biplab Das being the nominee of the deceased insured Mira Das filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum, Gomati, Udaipur alleging that his mother Mira Das died on 13.05.2014 due to heart attack and during her life time his mother purchased a policy of Reliance Endowment Plan from the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company on 27^th March, 2014 bearing Policy No.51564404 for a period of 15 years and the yearly premium of the policy was @ Rs.40,000/-. The respondent-complainant being the son of the insured was made nominee in the said policy. After the death of his mother, the respondent-complainant made claim to the Insurance Company for the insured amount, but the same was repudiated by the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company by its letter dated 29^th October, 2014 stating that there was gross misrepresentation of occupation and income as mentioned in the proposal form. It is also stated by the complainant that the deceased used to do several private tuition in the village. According to the respondent-complainant, the Insurance Company accepted the policy of his deceased mother Mira Das by receiving 1^st yearly premium of Rs.40,000/- after sufficient enquiry, but when the respondent-complainant made death claim of the insured, the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company without making proper enquiry denied the benefit of insurance policy. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant served advocate notice upon the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company to which they responded taking their earlier stand. It is further stated by the respondent-complainant that repudiation of his claim by the Insurance Company is nothing but an arbitrary, illegal and erroneous decision of the Insurance Company to deprive the respondent-complainant of his lawful demand. Finally, the respondent-complainant claimed before the learned District Forum the sum assured by the policy amounting to Rs.4,57,900/- with bonus along with interest @12% per annum over the amount from the date of receipt of the claim by the Insurance Company.

5. The opposite party no.1-Insurance Company, the appellant herein, contested the case by filing written statement denying the allegations made by the respondent-complainant in his complaint petition. It is admitted by the Insurance Company that on receipt of duly filled-up proposal form along with the initial premium from the insured, the Insurance Company evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of information furnished by the insured and the Insurance Company issued the Policy bearing No.51564404 with risk commencement date being 27.03.2014 and thereafter, the policy document was dispatched at the address of the insured. It is also the case of the Insurance Company that the policy was obtained by concealing the material facts with respect to her income and occupation and had the Insurance Company been aware of the correct facts about the deceased life insured, the policy would never be issued in favour of the insured. On receipt of the claim, they carried out an investigation and it was revealed that the insured wrongly mentioned her income and occupation. According to the Insurance Company, the claim of the complainant is false, malicious, incorrect and has been filed with mala fide intention. Thus the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the respondent-complainant on the ground of suppression of material facts.
6. Despite receipt of notice, the opposite party no.2, Mr. Pranab Das did not appear before the learned District Forum to contest the case. Hence, the case was proceeded ex parte against the said opposite party.
7. During hearing, the respondent-complainant, Biplab Das, the nominee of the insured examined himself as PW.1 and also examined another Shyamal Das as PW.2. He also submitted the documents like, the photo copy of insurance policy, the photo copy of notice dated 05.04.2016 and the original letter dated 18.04.2016 of Vinit Mishra and Associates which were exhibited as Exhibit-1, 2 and 3.
8. On the other hand, opposite party no.1, Insurance Company examined one Tinkubrata Das as O.P.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf.
9. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company, the appellant herein, has preferred the instant appeal along with a condonation petition as stated (supra).
11. The respondent-complainant has filed an objection to the prayer for condonation petition.
12.  

“

Mr. Sarkar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party no.1, Insurance Company while urging for condoning the delay and to admit the appeal would contend that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for causing delay in preferring the appeal. He particularly relied upon Paragraph-3 to 9 of the condonation petition which are as follows:-

 

3. That the copy of the impugned order was dispatched to the Appellant through Courier at the address of the Appellant.
4. However, the courier was inadvertently delivered at the desk of an officer who was on leave for a period of one week.
5. That, since the said Officer was on leave for a period of one week and when the Officer resumed office, multiple number of documents/papers/courier were being piled up at his desk. Owing to the large number of documents being piled up at the desk of the Officer, the said courier containing the order copy got missed to attend and went into the drawer of the table.
6. That, thereafter, there was a reshuffle in the sitting arrangement of the officers and a new Officer was allocated the said desk. The Officer during shifting of the documents from the old workstation to the new workstation came across the said Courier containing the said order.
7. That, thereafter, the Officer immediately handed over the copy of the order to the legal department of the Appellant.
8. That on perusal of the said order, the Legal Department of the Appellant took the opinion of its authorized legal counsel and the Legal Counsel of the Appellant opined to prefer an appeal against the said order.
9. That the Appellant as per the internal procedures prepared a note seeking approval of the Competent Authority. After receipt of the approval from the Competent Authority, the Appellant instructed its authorized counsel to draft the Appeal.”

He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 133 as well as in State of Nagaland Vs Lipok Ao & Ors., AIR 2005 3 SCC 752.

13. Per contra, Mr. Bhaumik, Ld. Counsel while opposing the prayer for condonation of delay submits that the cause of delay in preferring the appeal as explained by the appellant-opposite party no.1 is nothing but a vague one and not only that, the Insurance Company was totally careless in preferring the appeal. He has further submitted that from the condonation petition, it would not be evident that as to when the appellant-Insurance Company received the free copy of the impugned judgment and when the same was dispatched to the appellant through courier. He again submits that though it is contended that the courier was inadvertently delivered at the desk of an officer who was on leave for a period of one week, but there is no mention when the courier was delivered and who was the officer on leave. In response to the contention made in Paragraph-6 and 7, Mr. Bhowmik, Ld. Counsel has also submitted that it has not been mentioned when there was reshuffle in the sitting arrangement of the officers and when the officer handed over the copy of the order to the Legal Department of the appellant-Insurance Company. He also submits that the explanations as stated in the condonation petition are only to eye wash the mind of this Commission so that the Commission can admit the appeal. In respect of case law relied upon by Mr. Sarkar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Bhowmik, Ld. Counsel submits that those cases have no application so far the case in hand is concerned as the facts of those cases are totally different than the case in hand. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of this Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India & another Vs Sri Kinkar Chowdhury [in Appeal Case No.A/59/2017] wherein this Commission after considering the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No.6974 of 2013) almost a similar application for condonation of delay was rejected.  
14. 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.)”
15. 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.”    

16. 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.”

17. We have considered the cause of delay as explained by the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company in its condonation petition as well as the objection filed by the respondent-complainant and also 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. From Paragraph-3 to 9 of the condonation petition, there is no mention when the Insurance Company received the free copy of the impugned judgment and when the same was received by them through courier and when their officer handed over the impugned judgment to their Legal Department for preferring appeal and more so, finally when the present Ld. Advocate received the copy of the impugned judgment and/or memo of appeal along with condonation petition. Such an application is nothing but totally vague and without any material particulars. In Anshul Aggarwal (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court considered some other cases of it and held that “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.”.
18. The contention of the opposite party no.1-Insurnce Company that the delay caused due to delay of dispatching the impugned judgment through courier and changing of sitting arrangement of staff and non-availability of officer 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 mechanically. According to us, all these explanations as stated in Paragraph-3 to 9 of the condonation petition are only to eye wash the mind of this Commission.
19. We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company acted in such a manner for preferring the appeal which is nothing but mere negligence and not beyond their control, rather the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company sat over the matter for 99 days in the name of delay of dispatching the impugned judgment through courier and changing of sitting arrangement of the staff. We have also considered the cases referred by the Insurance Company in their memo of appeal and also cited by the Ld. Counsel. None of those decisions is helpful to the case of the appellant-Insurance Company.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the opposite party no.1-Insurance Company failed to explain the delay properly as required under law in preferring the connected appeal.

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, Gomati, Udaipur.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura