NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2105 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 17/03/2010 in Appeal No. 68/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.Through its Manager Legal, Situated at 2nd Floor, Delphi B- Wing, Arcade Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, PowaiMumbai - 400076Maharashtra
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SURINDER KR. SHARMAR/o. I-742, Chittaranjan ParkNew Delhi - 110049Delhi
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 05 Jul 2010
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the State Commission has erroneously rejected their request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and has also misread the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State Government of Haryana V/s. Chandramani and others (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 131. He has further submitted that there is substantial merit in this case as there has been suppression of material fact and if the delay is not condoned, it will result in miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the caveator has submitted that the gross delay of 148 days admitted by the Petitioner/Opposite Party has not been explained. On the contrary the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay states misleading facts. It does not give any detail of dates of shifting of the office and records, he has submitted that contrary to what is pleaded, office of the Petitioner/Opposite Party was very much at Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076 as is evident from page 118 of the paper book. Arguments advanced by the counsel for either side have been considered. Herein, the order under challenge pertains to condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which has been rejected by the State Commission. The petitioner has not filed a copy of his application for condonation of delay as a part of the paper-book but has produced the same on being pointed out by the learned counsel for the caveator. The application for condonation of delay has been gone into. Merely stating that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate would not constitute sufficient cause. It is further noticed that the delay has been caused as the office of the Appellant had to be shifted from the address (in Mumbai) as mentioned in cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal to Powai in Mumbai. While no date of any such shifting has been given, even the present address of the petitioner continues to be Powai in Mumbai, as can be seen from page 118 of paper-book. It, thus, appears that this ground has been advanced to cover the delay for which there is no justification. Moving papers from office to office or table to table would not constitute sufficient reason for the delay. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel that his main case has got substantial merit and, therefore, the delay be condoned, it would of relevance to refer to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Mahant Bikram Das Chela Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh & Others [1977 AIR 2221], wherein it has been held as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigation who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay. In a very recent judgment in the case of State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) [II (2009) SLT 793, the Honble Supreme Court on this subject has held as under :- It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24-A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. The ratio of the above judgments is squarely applicable to the case in hand. Having perused the order of the State Commission which clearly states that the reasons advanced is wholly insufficient and the shifting of their office was the internal affair of the applicant/complainant and having regard to the aforesaid judgements, this Commission entirely agrees with the findings of the State Commission that the explanation given by the petitioner is not sufficient for condonation of the inordinate delay. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage itself.
......................S.K. NAIKPRESIDING MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
