Haryana

StateCommission

A/986/2015

NAND KISHORE SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STERLING MOTORS CO. - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH BEHL

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      986 of 2015

Date of Institution:      17.11.2015

Date of Decision :      27.01.2016

 

Nand Kishore Sharma s/o Sh. Mahabir Prasad, Resident of 1472, Gali No.6, Old Delhi Road, Rajiv Nagar, Gurgaon.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Sterling Motors Company, Solitaire Plaza, Ground Floor, MG Road, Sikandarpur, Gurgaon through its Director.

2.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Payal Cinema Complex, Sector 14, Gurgaon through its Manager.

3.      Mr. Mahinder Kumar Dawar, Administrative Officer (Marketing), M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Payal Cinema Complex, Sector 14, Gurgaon.

                             Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Munish Behl, Advocate for appellant.

                             Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Nand Kishore Sharma-complainant, is in appeal against the order dated April 21^st, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed in default for want of appearance.

2.      The appellant/complainant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, averring that he had purchased Jeep bearing registration No.HR-55 NT-6647, Bolero LX, from Sterling Motor Company, Gurgaon-Opposite Party/respondent No.1, vide invoice dated 8^th July, 2011 (Annexure C-1). It was got insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-respondent No.2, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-3. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the jeep was Rs.5,69,049/-.  During the intervening night of August 5^th/6^th, 2011, the jeep was stolen in the area of DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon. F.I.R. No.207 dated 8^th August, 2011 (Annexure C-10) was lodged in Police Station DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon.  The Insurance Company was informed. The appellant filed claim (Annexure C-11) with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 1^st April, 2012 (Annexure C-15) on the ground that the jeep was being used for hire and reward though it was insured as a private vehicle.

3.      Upon notice, the respondents appeared before the District Forum on March 18^th, 2014 and the case was adjourned to 21^st April, 2014 for filing reply. 

4.      On April 21^st, 2014, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant and the complaint was dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

5.      The complainant/appellant has filed appeal before this Commission with delay of 544 days alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay.

6.      The explanation for condonation of delay given on behalf of the appellant is that advocate was engaged by him who did not inform about the dismissal of the complaint.

7.      This Commission feels that the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory. The complaint was dismissed in default on April 21^st, 2014 and the appellant filed the instant appeal on November 17^th, 2015, that is, after a delay of 544 days.  The act and conduct of the appellant shows that he was not vigilant about his case.  It is a case of gross neglect and negligence on the part of the complainant/appellant in pursuing his case.

8.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, where the question was whether the respondent-Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals before the High Court, held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

9.      This case is squarely covered by Pundlik Jalam Patil’s case (Supra). Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.    Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being barred by time.

 

Announced 27.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL