Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/133/2020

M/s Aura Earth Movers & Infrastructure - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Yudhvir Handa

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 133 / 2020

 

M/s Aura Earthmovers & Infrastructures

having its office at M.I.G. 355

Vivek Vihar, Ranipur More, Haridwar through its Managing Partner

Sh. Hirdyesh Dev Gaur S/o Sh. Digamber Singh Gaur

R/o 38, Gandhi Ashram, Vishnu Garden

Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar

…… Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.         Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited

            Peninsula Corporate Park, Piramal Tower

            9^th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg

            Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

 

2.         Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited

            City Centre, 1^st Floor, 50, Rajpur Road

            Dehradun – 248 001, Uttarakhand

…… Respondents / Opposite Parties

 

Sh. Prateek Handa, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

None for Respondents

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 06/04/2023

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 83 of 2013; M/s Aura Earthmovers & Infrastructures Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and another, by which the consumer complaint filed by the appellant – complainant was dismissed.

 

2.       We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and perused the record.  None appeared on behalf of respondents, although service of notice upon respondents has already been held to be sufficient vide order dated 17.01.2023.

 

3.       According to office report dated 20.10.2020, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant after a delay of 456 days’.

 

4.       The delay condonation application has been moved by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.  The delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the delay condonation application supported by affidavit.  In the delay condonation application, it has been stated that the deponent is a layman and is not much aware of the legal proceedings.  The appellant applied for certified copy of impugned judgment and order on 07.03.2020 and the same was received on 11.03.2020.  Unfortunately, the deponent had problem of slip disc and was on bed rest from May, 2019.  The deponent was suggested Hot Fermentation (Sikai) and was suggested bed rest for about six months’.  On account of bed rest, the deponent was unable to contact the counsel and file appeal.  After recovering, the deponent contacted counsel on 15.12.2019.  Thereafter, the deponent sent all the documents as well as impugned judgment and order to higher authorities for further measures.  The higher authorities took some time in giving approval for filing the appeal.  The appellant was under the impression that the State Commission is not functioning for want of sufficient Coram and thereafter, lockdown was declared by the Government.  There is no deliberate fault or negligence on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal and the delay in filing the appeal was due to unavoidable circumstances.

 

5.       None of the grounds taken by the appellant in delay condonation application, can be termed as “sufficient ground” for condoning such a long and inordinate delay in filing the appeal. 

 

6.       The reasons for our above inference are that the impugned judgment and order is dated 07.06.2019 and there is no explanation from the side of the appellant as to why the certified copy thereof was applied by the appellant as late as on 07.03.2020.  The consumer complaint was filed by the appellant, who was the complainant before the District Commission and the appellant should have been vigilant enough to know as to what has happened to its consumer complaint and not sleep over the matter.  So far as the ground of alleged illness of Managing Partner of the appellant is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that no medical certificate or document has been filed on record from the side of the appellant to prove that the deponent was bed ridden from May, 2019.  Even otherwise, the appellant is a Partnership Firm and if the Managing Partner was bed ridden and unable to contact the counsel in order to file the appeal, the Firm could have very well authorised some other official for filing the appeal, which was not done.

 

7.       The negligence of the appellant is writ large, in view of the fact that as per the own saying of the appellant, the appellant was under the impression that for want of proper Coram, the State Commission is not functioning.  Such an impression on the part of the appellant, can not at all be appreciated.

 

8.       So far as time consumed in seeking approval for filing the appeal from higher authorities is concerned, Hon’ble National Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Sunil Gupta reported in IV (2012) CPJ 360 (NC), has declined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition.  In the said case, the delay of 36 days’ in filing the revision petition was not condoned and it was held that the procedural delay is not the sufficient cause for condoning the delay.  Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vishnu Chand Sharma reported in IV (2012) CPJ 676 (NC), has held that the only explanation that file was moved from table to table to get permission to file petition is not sufficient and the delay of 169 days’ in filing the revision petition was not condoned.

 

9.       Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Jain International Sansthan Vs. Krish City, Bhiwadi and another reported in III (2016) CPJ 2 (NC), has declined to condone the delay of 168 days’ in filing the revision petition and has held that no lucid excuse is forthcoming from the petitioner to justify the delay in filing the revision petition.  It was held that the case is barred by time.  In the said decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court given in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013; Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, decided on 17.12.2013 reported in 2013 (SLT Soft) 6, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has confirmed the order of Hon’ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days’.

 

10.     For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and there is no plausible explanation put forward by the appellant for making a case in its favour, so as to allow the delay condonation application and condone the delay in filing the appeal.  Consequently, the application for condonation of delay warrants dismissal.

 

11.     Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  As a consequence thereof, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation.  No order as to costs.         

 

12.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K