Tripura

StateCommission

A/13/2018

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Gouranga Debnath - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. R. Purkayastha

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.13.2018

 

 

1. National Insurance Company Ltd.,

To be represented by the Divisional Manager,

Agartala Divisional Office,

42, Akhaura Road, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Bishalgarh Business Centre,

Agartala Sabroom Road,

P.O. & P.S. Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

 

Vs

 

1. Sri Gouranga Debnath,

S/o Late Debendra Ch. Debnath,

Kasba, P.O. Dhwajanagar, P.S. Biwsalgarh,

Sepahijala, Tripura.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                            Miss Rajashree Purkayastha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                           Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:         28.08.2018.

 

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager and the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Bishalgarh Business Centre, Agartala-Sabroom Road, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, Tripura under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.71 of 2017 along with an application for condoning the delay of 156 days in preferring the appeal against the aforesaid judgment.      

2. Today is fixed for order on condonation petition.
3. Heard Miss Rajashree Purkayastha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Insurance Company) as well as Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
4. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-  

On 29.07.2016, complainant while driving the motor cycle with learner license met with an accident and his son-in-law was sitting on the back seat at the time of accident. He was under treatment in the Bishalgarh Hospital, Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital and ILS Hospital and spent Rs.1,94,462/- for his treatment. Complainant claimed the amount from the opposite parties-Insurance Company as he entitled to get the treatment cost as per the policy purchased by him from the opposite parties-Insurance Company, policy coverage is up to Rs.1 lac, but the opposite parties-Insurance Company did not entertain his claim. Thus the complainant filed a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.3,93,462/-.

5. Opposite parties-Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement denying the claim of the complainant, the respondent herein. It is stated in the written statement that no such accident was happened as claimed by the complainant and as such, the complaint petition is not maintainable at all. It is also stated by the opposite parties that the injuries as stated was not caused by the accident. Opposite parties therefore, prayed for dismissing the complaint petition.   
6. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties in their respective pleadings, the learned District Forum framed the following points for deciding the complaint case:-

1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to the motor vehicle accident?
2. Whether petitioner was entitled to get compensation covered by the policy? 

7. After going through the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment wherein the learned District Forum directed the Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay Rs.1,10,000/- to the  petitioner. Payment is to be made within two months.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned District Forum, the appellant-opposite parties preferred the instant appeal along with an application for condoning the delay of 156 days in preferring the appeal.
9. Reasons for causing delay in preferring the appeal as stated in Paragraph-3 of the condonation petition are as follows:-

“(3) That, impugned judgment was passed on 20.09.2017 but the copy of the Ld. Advocate of the petitioner before the ld. Forum was ready for supply on 21.09.2017. The petitioner got the copy of the judgment in the second week of October, 2017. After getting the copy of the judgment, in the third week of the running month the petitioner sought for the opinion of the engaged counsel of the petitioner before the Ld. Forum. In the fourth week of October, 2017, the Ld. Counsel of the petitioner communicated his opinion to approach the Hon’ble State Commission against the impugned judgment. On the basis of this opinion, the petitioner had sent the entire case docket to the Guwahati Regional Office of the petitioner in the first week of December for their opinion and decision. In the second week of December, 2017, the GRO sought for opinion of their empanelled Advocate at Guwahati, who in the fourth week of December, 2017 communicated his opinion. On the basis of his opinion, GRO communicated their decision to prefer appeal in the second week of January, 2018. After that, the petitioner decided to prefer appeal and as such engaged Ms. Rajashree Purkayastha, Adv in the third week of January, 2018 for preferring appeal and handed over the file to her. After receiving the file, the engaged counsel of the petitioner had gone through the file and drafted the appeal and was ready to be filed in the fourth week of January, 2018. But to prefer appeal, the statutory deposit has to be submitted for which the petitioner faced some technical problem as the policy was issued by the Bishalgarh Business Centre and as such the appeal could not be filed in the last week of January,. It took sometime to overcome the technical difficulties and as such the cheque was finally handed over to their engaged counsel on 09^th of March, 2018. But in the meantime, their engaged counsel was suffering from cold and cough. However, after recovery, a fresh condonation petition was drafted and the same was finally filed on 26.03.2018.”

10. The respondent-complainant filed an objection to the prayer for condonation of delay as sought for by the opposite parties. It is also stated in Paragraph-6 of the objection that entire statement made by the appellants clearly shows about their negligence in regard to the filing of the appeal against the judgment passed by the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala. In Paragraph-6 of the objection petition it is also stated, inter alia, that “In the statement it is very much clear that in the first week of October, 2017 the appellant got information from their Ld. Advocate for filing an appeal against the order but they were sitting idle over the matter from the last week of October, from the entire month of November and up to second week of December that more than two months without any action. Thereafter getting the communication in the fourth week of December, 2017 they again without justifying any reason keep the file unattended for two weeks and when their present advocate drafted the matter and advise them for filing and the statutory fees they took another one and half months without showing any justification in their statement. So the delay which was caused was totally intentional and to frustrate the claim of the respondent”

It is further stated in the objection that the respondent filed an Execution Petition bearing No. EA/3 of 2018 on 08.01.2018 before the Ld. Executing Court and the notice was served upon the respondent by the second week of January and only after receipt of the notice of execution from the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala, the appellant took steps for filing the appeal. Thus the reasons for delay were not properly explained in their petition for which itself the condonation petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Miss Purkayastha, Ld. Counsel would contend that the delay took place due to the following of the official procedure. Thus such delay cannot be considered as an intentional one. She further submits that there cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. She finally submits that every case should be addressed in its own circumstances.
12. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel while opposing the prayer for condoning the delay of 156 days would contend that admittedly the impugned judgment was passed on 20.09.2017 and the copy of the judgment was ready for supply on 21.09.2017, but the appellant-opposite parties did not collect the same in time. He has also contended that according to the contention of the appellant-opposite parties, they got the copy of the judgment in the second week of October, 2017, but they were sitting idle over the matter up to the second week of December that is more than two months without any action and not only that, even after getting the opinion from their Advocate at Guwahati which was communicated in the fourth week of December, 2017, they again without justifying any reason kept the file unattended for two weeks, therefore, such delay is nothing but an intentional one. He further submits that the appeal is filed along with condonation petition only to frustrate the Execution Petition filed by the respondent-complainant before the learned District Forum. According to him, no sufficient cause is shown and thus the delay has not been properly explained. He has relied upon a judgment of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in [Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam Bansal] 2000 3 CPJ 315, particularly, Paragraph-6 and 7 of the said Report wherein Delhi State Commission considered almost similar points which are as follows:-

“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.”

13. We have gone through the condonation petition as well as the objection. Contention of the appellants 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. In the application, nothing has been stated as to why they could not collect the copy of the judgment till second week of October and also why more than two weeks were taken to obtain opinion from their counsel to approach this Commission. More so, it is not clear to us as to why the appellants waited almost for two months for sending the case docket to the Guwahati Regional Office for their decision. The reason for delay in preferring the appeal from the month of January to March is not properly explained. According to us, all these explanations as stated in Paragraph-3 of the condonation petition are only to eye wash the mind of this Commission.
14. In Basawaraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No.6974 of 2013), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. ‘A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.’ The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim ‘dura lex sed lex’ which means ‘the law is hard but it is the law’, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, ‘inconvenience is not’ a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.”
15. ‘Sufficient cause’ is the cause for which the opposite parties could not be blamed for their filing of appeal in time. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. In other way, it can be said that "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".
16. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression, 'sufficient cause' though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent 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 the 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.
17. 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, wherein 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.”

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the appellant-opposite parties failed to explain the delay properly in filing 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).

          We are of the further opinion that the delay in filing the instant appeal has not been explained properly as required under law and the same is also not bona fide. Accordingly, the condonation petition is dismissed and in consequent thereto, the appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura