C.VISWANATH

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 153 & 156 of 2016 dated 09.08.2016.

2. According to the Petitioner/Complainant, he purchased i-20 Hyundai Car from the Respondent No.3. for Rs.6,80,488/- Respondent No.1 handed over package/cashless insurance policy to the Petitioner. Respondent No.3 assured that in case of any accident of the vehicle, all the formalities of survey and lodging of claim will be initiated by them. Unfortunately, the car of the Petitioner met with an accident on 27.08.2012. The Petitioner informed the Insurance Company. The vehicle was brought to Respondent No.3 on 30.08.2012 for repair and claim. Respondent No.3 obtained insurance policy from Respondent No.1 and it was the duty of Respondent No.3 to complete all formalities. Respondent No.3 informed Respondent 1 to 2 regarding receiving of accidental vehicle for repair and prepared an estimated of repair for Rs.6,50,822/-. Respondent No.1 and 2 appointed the surveyor and loss assessor Shri MS Uppal who asked the Petitioner to sign some papers on the pretext that the vehicle was in total loss condition. When the Petitioner enquired from Respondent No.3, it was told that the Surveyor had assessed the loss to a tune of Rs.2,49,723/- against the estimated cost of Rs. 650822/-. The vehicle of the Petitioner has been lying with Respondent No. 3 since 30.08.2012 in the same condition. Respondent No.3 was demanding Rs. 250/- per day as parking of accidental vehicle charges in his premises. Respondent No.1 and 2 did not take any action to settle the claim of the Petitioner and the Petitioner had to incur Rs.200/- per day towards conveyance charges. Hence, Complaint was filed.  

3. The Complaint was contested by the Respondents and they have filed separate written statements. Respondent No.1 and 2 submitted that there was a delay of 22 days in giving intimation of the claim by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 and 2, which was violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The Surveyor has submitted his final report dated 23.01.2013 wherein the liability of Respondents No.1 and 2 was assessed at Rs. 249723/- after deducting depreciation amount, excess clause as per terms and conditions of the policy.

4.      Respondent No.3 submitted that no assurance of any kind as alleged by the Petitioner in her complaint was ever given to the Petitioner by Respondent No.3. After receiving the vehicle in the workshop, Respondent No.3 obtained insurance policy from the Petitioner and informed the insurance company who appointed their surveyor for assessment of the loss. Without consent either from the owner or insurance company, Respondent No.3 was not liable to start repair work. Respondent No.3 denied the fact that the insurance policy of the Petitioner was cashless policy, rather it was a simple policy. Respondent No.3 received information form the insurance company who assessed the loss at Rs.249723/- against an estimated repair value of Rs.6,50,822/-. Respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 21.10.2012 to the Petitioner for taking a decision regarding the repair of her vehicle and in case she was not interested to get her vehicle repaired, then she would be liable to pay estimate charges as Rs.5,000/- and parking charges of the vehicle at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day. Respondent No.3 also sent many reminders to the Petitioner on 10.11.2012, 12.12.2012. 09.01.2013, 04.02.2013 and 20.02.2013 but of no avail. The vehicle of the Petitioner was lying parked in the workshop of Respondent No.3. There was no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of Respondent No.3 in any manner and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.   

5.      The District Forum, vide order dated 14.12.2015, clearly established that the Respondents were working in connivance with each other  and they delayed the settlement of the claim and repair of the vehicle without any reasonable cause or reason and that amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Respondent No.3 was duty bound to take up the repair at the earliest, but he delayed the repair due to reasons best known to him. Hence, Respondent No.3 was not entitled to take any parking charges form the Petitioner. Further as the repair of the vehicle had been delayed by Respondent No.3 without any reasonable cause or excuse, Respondent No.3 was liable to pay Rs.100/- per day from the date of accident till final settlement of the claim of the Petitioner. Further, since the vehicle was lying parked in an accident condition for more than 3 years due to the deficient services on the part of Respondent No.3, it would be in the interest of justice if the IDV alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum form the date of filing the Complaint till its realisation was awarded to the Petitioner and the said amount shall be paid by Respondents No.1 to 2 and Opposite Party No.3 in the Original Complaint to the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 to 2 and Opposite Party No.3 in the Original Complaint were directed to lift the vehicle from workshop of Respondent No.3. Thus, the Complaint was allowed. 

6.      Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Appeal No. 153/2016 was filed by Respondent No.1 and 2 against the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 and Opposite Party No.3 and Appeal No. 164/2016 was filed by the Opposite Party No.3 against the Petitioner and other 3 Respondents. The State Commission opined that the Petitioner failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there was a total loss of his car. In absence of any evidence contrary to the report of the Surveyor, the plea of the Petitioner seeking IDV of the car treating it a total loss, was not tenable. The Petitioner was entitled to compensation as per the report of the Surveyor. The Petitioner herself was to be blamed for delay in repair in view of the letter of the Surveyor. It was established that the Petitioner herself got the repair work stopped while the car was being repaired in the workshop of M/s Malwa Auto Sales Private Limited. Thus, the District Forum fell in error in allowing the Complaint while granting IDV and imposing penalty upon M/s Malwa Auto Sales Private Limited @ Rs.100/- per day. State Commission, however, vide order dated 09.08.2016, directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,49,723/- to the Petitioner along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till its realisation and Rs.10,000/- compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation. It has further directed that M/s Malwa Auto Sales Private Limited will not recover any parking charges from the Petitioner and the penalty @Rs. 100/- per day upon M/s Malwa Auto Sales Private Limited was set aside. The Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.153 of 2016 be refunded to the Petitioner against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before this Commission on the ground that the impugned order has been passed by the State Commission without application of mind by not considering the well-reasoned order of the District Forum. State Commission had also failed to consider that the of the District Forum finding recorded that respondents have connived with each other by delaying the claim and repairs of the vehicle without any justifiable reasons. Therefore, the Petitioner prayed that the impugned order of the State Commission may be set aside and that of the District Forum restored.

8.  Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the record.

9.      There was a delay of 108 days as per office report in filing the Revision Petition before this Commission. The Petitioner in the application for condonation of delay stated that the order of the State Commission was not communicated and he had to download copy of the same on internet. Delay also occurred in obtaining lower Fora record.

10.    In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed as under: -

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant”.

11.    In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows:

 “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.

12.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed as under:

 “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.”

13.    The District Forum has well established that the Respondents were working in connivance with each other and delayed the settlement of the claim and repair of the vehicle. The State Commission not treating it as a total loss of the case, was in agreement with the report of the Surveyor. The Petitioner was also blamed for delaying the repair of the car. In the totality of the circumstances, the State Commission has delivered a well-argued and modified order.

14.    In our view, delay of 108 days in filing the present Revision Petition which is inordinate and has not been sufficiently explained by the Petitioner. Further, the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned, just and fair order.

15. In view of the above, Revision Petition is dismissed both on ground of delay and merit and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed. No order as to costs.