Tripura

StateCommission

A/24/2018

Branch Manager, LICI Udaipur Branch - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Tarun Baran Roy - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Prahlad Kr. Debnath

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.24.2018

 

1. Branch Manager, LICI,

Udaipur Branch, Hospital Road,

Gomati District, Tripura.

 

2. Branch Manager, LICI,

Agartala Branch-II, Krishannagar, Agartala.

 

3. Divisional Manager, LICI,

Silchar Divisional Office.

 

4. Manager (H.L.),

LICI, Silchar Divisional Office,

Meherpur, Silchar.

 

[The Appellants are represented by the Manager (Admin.), LICI, Agartala Branch-I, Paradise Chowmuhani, Agartala, District - West Tripura, Pin: 799001.]

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

 

Vs

 

1. Sri Tarun Baran Roy,

S/o Late Jogesh Ch. Bhowmik,

Bankim Sarani, Akhaura Road, Agartala,

Pin: 799001.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                                             Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                          In person.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 29.08.2018.

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, Branch Manager, LICI, Udaipur Branch, Branch Manager, LICI, Agartala Branch-II, Divisional Manager, LICI, Silchar Divisional Office and Manager (H.L.), LICI, Silchar Divisional Office, Meherpur, Silchar represented by its Branch Manager, Manager (Admin.), LICI, Agartala Branch-I under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 02.04.2018 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.106 of 2017 along with an application for condoning the delay of 50 days in preferring the appeal against the aforesaid judgment.    

2. Today is fixed for order on condonation petition.
3. Heard Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, LICI (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Insurance Company) as well as Mr. Tarun Baran Roy, respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) appearing in person.
4. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant and his wife, Smt. Chabi Biswas Roy purchased LICI ‘Health Plus Plan’ policy covering his health and health of his wife. He has been paying the premium of Rs.15,000/- per year since the date of commencement of the policy i.e. from 04.03.2009. In the year 2016, within the validity of policy, his wife was hospitalized at C.M.C, Vellore for treatment there. Total cost of treatment was Rs.90,000/-. After the treatment, the complainant had taken up the matter with the Branch Manager, Udaipur Branch Office (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1) from where the policy was purchased. Thereafter he had also taken up the matter with the Divisional Manager, LICI, Silchar Divisional Office (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.3) as the appellant-opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that required documents were not produced by the complainant.Due to such deficiency of service by the opposite parties, the appellants herein, the complainant suffered and in consequent thereto filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming the cost of the treatment amounting to Rs.90,000/- and also in addition compensation, in total Rs.1,80,000/-.

5. Opposite parties-LICI i.e. Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated in the written statement that on receipt of the claim on 25.08.2016, Udaipur Branch forwarded the same on 26.08.2016 to the concerned Manager at Silchar Divisional Office. Thereafter, the Silchar Divisional Office called for some requirements on 08.09.2016. Claim was forwarded on 3^rd Party Administrator. Some other requirements were called for. Those requirements were not produced by the claimant/complainant. Onus lies on the policy holder to comply with any requirements in the course of claim evaluation. As the policy holder failed to comply so, his claim was closed. There was no deficiency of service of opposite parties and claim of the complainant is therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned District Forum after considering the contention raised by the parties in their pleadings framed the following points for deciding the case:

1. Whether the repudiation of claim by O.P. was justified?
2. Whether there was any deficiency of service by O.P. and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? 

7. Complainant produced the copy of letter of LICI in regard to submission some documents, letter written to the Manager, LICI Division, another correspondence with the Manager, Silchar Divisional Office, declaration by the proposer, Policy certificate, discharge summary and paper relating to hospitalization at C.M.C. Vellore. Complainant also examined himself as a witness.
8. Opposite parties, on the other hand, produced the examination-in-chief of one witness, namely, Sri Sudip Bhattacharjee, Branch Manager, LICI, Udaipur Branch.
9. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record as well as the documents exhibited, allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite parties-Insurance Company to pay Rs.90,000/- as cost of treatment to the complainant without any further delay. It is further directed that the complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.1,05,000/-. Payment is to be made within one month, if not paid, it will carry interest 9% per annum.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Forum as stated (supra), the opposite parties-Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal along with a condonation petition for condoning the delay of 50 days in preferring the appeal.
11. In the condonation petition, the opposite parties-Insurance Company stated, inter alia, that

“5. That the Lower Forum has passed the Judgment and Award on 2.4.2018 and thereafter the engaged Counsel has collected the copies of the Judgment and sent the same along with the opinion to the LICI, Agartala Branch-I, Agartala. The LICI, Agartala Branch No.1 then sent the relevant papers to the Office of the Manager, (L & HPF), Silchar Divisional Office, Silchar within a week and after receipt of the same on 19.4.2018, the Manager, (L & HPF) perused the details in the findings and evidence sent all the relevant papers to the Office of the Regional Manager, (Legal), LICI Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata on 24.4.2018. The Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata sent the file on 7.5.2018 to North Eastern (Legal) at Gauhati, LICI, towards review of the case and the North Eastern (Legal) at Gauhati sent back the case file on 9.5.2018 to Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata for their perusal and thereafter the case file was referred on 15.5.2018 to the Health Insurance Deptt. For necessary observation and it take some due nonavailability of the competent authority and for the case was reviewed by the HI Deptt. And thereafter on 13.6.2018 The Legal Deptt., Eastern Zonal Office gave their opinion through Email for Zonal Office, LICI, the relevant records were sent to the L & HPF, Silchar Divisional Office, LICI, Silchar with the authority for submission of appeal before this Hon’ble Commission, Tripura forwarding with the some documents on 16.6.2018 to the LICI, Agartala Branch-1 and after receipt of the same, the LICI, Agartala Branch-1 has also delivered the relevant papers to Counsel and then the Demand Draft (DD) of Rs.25,000/- only dated 21.06.2018 was received by the engaged Counsel and few days time is taken for drafting the instant appeal and the entire case filed along with memo of appeal with condonation petition, stay application and affidavit which have been sent to the Agartala Branch office of LICI on 21.6.18 for signature of the Branch Manager, LICI, Agartala Branch and preparation of copies of the memo of appeal and it is being filed on 22.6.2018 and thus there is 50 days delay caused from the Judgment dated 2.4.2018 in filing the instant appeal.”  

12. The complainant though did not file any written objection, but orally objected to the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay caused due to departmental involvement and which cannot be the sufficient ground to condone the delay. It is also submitted that in the condonation petition though it is stated that on 02.04.2018 the judgment and award was delivered, but it is not mentioned when the copy of the said judgment was collected by the engaged Counsel for the appellants and when he submitted his opinion to the opposite parties and ultimately when the LICI, Agarala Branch sent the relevant papers to the Office of the Manager, L & HPF i.e. the opposite party no.4. Thus according to him, this is not a fit case where the delay should be condoned.
13. Mr. Debnath, Ld. Counsel would contend that the delay took place due to the following of official procedure. Thus such delay should be considered as an unintentional one. He further submits that there cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay in filing the appeal. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has submitted that on similar grounds, this Commission condoned the delay as the complainant/petitioner therein did not object the same.
14. 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 points Paragraph-6 and 7 of the said Report which are relevant are reproduced 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.”    

15. We have gone through the condonation petition. We have also considered the oral objection of the complainant. 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 should be proff of sufficient cause, discretion for condonation of delay cannot be exercised. In the application, nothing has been stated as to when the Ld. engaged Counsel of the opposite parties i.e. the appellants herein, has collected the copies of the judgment and sent the same along with his opinion to the LICI Branch No.I, Agartala, though it is mentioned that the LICI, Agartala Branch No.I then sent the relevant papers to the Office of the Manager, (L & HPF), Silchar Divisional Office, Silchar within a week and after receipt of the same on 19.04.2018, the Manager, (L & HPF) on perusal sent all the relevant papers to the Office of the Regional Manager, (Legal), LICI Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata on 24.04.2018 and thereafter, the Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata sent the file on 07.05.2018 to North Eastern (Legal) at Guwahati, LICI for review of the case and the North Eastern (Legal) at Guwahati sent back the case file on 09.05.2018 to Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata for their perusal and thereafter the case file was referred on 15.05.2018 to the Health Insurance Department for necessary observation and it took some times due to non-availability of the competent authority and for the case was reviewed by the HI Department. According to us, the opposite parties-LICI is not a rustic litigant, rather a litigant who is well conversant about the practice and procedure of the Court in preferring an appeal and almost in every fortnight the Insurance Company approaching before the Commission/Forum with an appeal. Therefore it cannot be said that they were not aware about the fact that the delay caused due to the departmental involvement cannot be a sufficient ground to condone the delay. There is no doubt that an application for condonation has to be considered liberally, but that does not mean that when there is no reasonable explanations except the case docket dispatch from one office to another office. Thus according to us, all these explanations are only to eye wash the mind of this Commission.  
16. 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.”
17. ‘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".
18. 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.
19. 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.”

20. The appellant-opposite parties have failed to explain the delay properly in filing the connected appeal. The only reason stated for causing delay is the departmental involvement, which cannot be a ground for condoning the delay as stated (supra).

          In view of the above, we are of the 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.

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

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura