STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

S. Gobind Singh Nayyar S/o late S. Daljit Singh, resident of H. No.1583, Sector 49-B, Pushpac Complex, Chandigarh.

….Appellant

                                                   Versus

1.       The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head      Office at   A-25/27, Asaf Ali road,  New Delhi 110002                      through its Chief Manager/MD Sh.A.V.Girija Kumar..

2.        The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Regional                          Office at SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh                 though its  Regional Manager Dr.J.L.Ahuja.

3.        E-Meditek (TPA) Services Limited, SCO 77, 2^nd  floor,          Sector-40-C, Chandigarh-160036 through Harinder                         Singh Sandhu.

4.         The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office       at 32, G.T. Road, Opp.  Narinder Cinema, Jalandhar           144001 though its Branch Manager/Incharge Sh.Om               Parkash Dhawan.

                                                                                      ……Respondents

               Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986               against  order dated 11.05.2017 passed by District Consumer                         Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.No.                            469/2016..

Argued by:  Mr.Harish Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant.

                     Mr.Vinod Chaudhari,Advocate for respondents No. 1,2 & 4.   

                     Respondent No.3 ex parte

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                     Appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 11.05.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(I), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only), partly allowing his complaint. 

 2.            Before the Forum, it was grievance of the complainant that despite in possession of valid insurance policy (Happy Family Floater Policy (Silver Plan), when claim was raised for reimbursement of amount spent on the treatment of his daughter, a part of the claim was wrongly rejected. 

3.             Upon notice, reply was filed. Respondents/Opposite Parties tried to justify sanctioning of amount in terms of the insurance policy held by the complainant.

4.            The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, partly allowed the complaint holding respondents/OPs guilty of providing deficiency in service and also in adopting unfair trade practice. Following relief was granted in favour of the complainant;

a.     To pay the remaining claim amount of

                Rs.4,10,000/-(5,00,000/- minus 90,000/- to the                          complainant  towards  the claim.                  

     b.     To make payment of Rs.25000/- to the complainant                            towards compensation for causing mental and                  physical  harassment.

     c.      To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant    as litigation expenses.

The awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a time bound manner, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.  

5.            When this appeal was filed, it was barred by limitation of 68 days.  To condone the said delay in filing the appeal, an application was also filed by the appellant. When notice of the  application and in appeal was issued, it was specifically contended that less amount than the one claimed by the appellant/complainant has been granted. After going through the contents of the order passed and the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the grievance raised is totally unjustified. It is an admitted fact that before filing the complaint, respondents/Ops had already paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant.

      Be that as it may, appeal filed is barred by limitation of 68 days. To condone it, in the application, following averment has been made ;

“That the accompanying Appeal could not be filed within the limitation period as the Applicant after passing the impugned order (Annexure A-1) has been under the bona-fide information and belief that the limitation period for filing the present appeal is 90 days, but the mistake was realized when the applicant contacted the present Counsel recently to get the Execution Application of the impugned order filed, besides the applicant has been facing funds crisis to engage a counsel being a service class with grown up children to raise, and moreover, being a diabetic he has been suffering from various problems as per available medical record(Annexure M-1) and has not been able to carry on his normal routine including today. The delay was also occasioned due to the ill health of the counsel as well. The applicant craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Commission to place on record the additional documents, if so, directed.”

6.             An attempt was made to say that the appellant/complainant was under bonafide belief that to file appeal 90 days period is provided. On what basis it was so said ; why the Counsel who conducted  proceedings before the Forum was not consulted, rather from the pleadings it appears that the appellant was satisfied with the order passed and without challenging the same, he went to his Counsel to get it executed.  It is case of the appellant that at that time he came to know about the limitation for filing the appeal. When Counsel was contacted, it is also not so mentioned. Furthermore, argument that the appellant was incapacitated to move due to his ill health also appears to be false. To support above said averments, some documents have been placed on record at pages 14 to 19. Those are test reports of blood, urine etc. A reading of reports does not show that the appellant was confined to bed or he was admitted to hospital for any ailment. Reports appears to be of routine nature. Thus, the appellant has failed to give reasonable explanation for condonation of delay. Averments made are vague and non-specific.

7.             In case of delay, it is duty of a litigant to explain it with reasonable explanation.  However, in cases, where no explanation is offered, such a compassion cannot be shown in favour of the litigant. It was held in Smt.Tara Wanti Vs State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 32, a case decided by a Full Bench of the  Punjab & Haryana High Court,  that sufficient cause, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party, invoking the aid of the Section, and the test to be applied, would be to see, as to whether, it was a bona-fide cause, in as much as, nothing could be considered to be bonafide, which is not done, with due care and attention. The Hon’ble  Supreme court in  Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, V(2010) SLT 790-III, (2010) CLT 201 (SC),  observed as under:-

“The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its  power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.”

               Further in Basawaraj & Anr Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (2013)14 SCC81, the Hon’ble Supreme held as under ;

                “The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent  a litigant to  approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

 8.          In the instant case, as no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 68 days, in filing the appeal, the application thus fails and stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal also  fails, and the same is  dismissed.

9.              Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.