1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act,1986 in challenge to the Order dated 29.04.2013 of the State Commission in misc. application no. 1049 of 2012 for condonation of delay in appeal no. 675 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 23.01.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 239 of 2010.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner insurance co. and have perused the record.  No one appears for the respondents complainants.

3.       The matter relates to repudiation of an insurance claim.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 23.01.2012 had allowed the complaint, on contest, and, for its reasons given, had ordered the insurance co. (the petitioner herein) to pay a sum of Rs.2.50 lakh to the complainants (the respondents herein) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment along with a sum of Rs. ten thousand in lumpsum towards damages and litigation expenses. 

The insurance co. preferred appeal before the State Commission.

The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 29.04.2013 dismissed the appeal on limitation. The said Order is reproduced below for ready reference:

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, which have not been paid.  Two adjournments have already been granted for this purpose and we do not find any ground for further adjourning the appeal for the same purpose.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to payment of costs, which have not been paid.  So the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.

4.       A plain reading of the State Commission’s Order shows that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-, but the cost was not paid. Two adjournments were also granted for the purpose, but then yet another adjournment was sought. The State Commission found no good ground for further adjourning the appeal for the same purpose, and, noting that delay had been condoned subject to payment of cost but the same had not been paid, the State Commission dismissed the appeal on limitation.

5.       Ex facie, we find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned Order of the State Commission.

In its petition the insurance co. has itself admitted that its appeal was delayed by 80 days. The prescribed period provided for under section 15 of the Act 1986 to file appeal against an Order of the District Commission is 30 days. The ideal normative period stipulated in section 19A for disposing an appeal is 90 days of its admission. The appeal in question was filed with self-admitted delay of 80 days beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. The Act is for “better protection of the interests of consumers”. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons speaks of “speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes”. The State Commission had in fact condoned the delay subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-, which, on the face of it itself, appears reasonable and fair. However, despite sufficient opportunity, and more, the cost had not been paid. The State Commission rightly passed the impugned Order, being left with no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal on limitation. 

In para 21 of its petition the insurance co. has vainly attempted to give some reasons relating to communication and interaction within the organization and by the organization with its counsel. A mere reading shows that the reasons only point towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude towards the Order(s) of the State Commission. No good ground or reason or mitigating circumstance is visible.

We also note in conjunction that the District Commission had passed its Order on contest i.e. the insurance co. had had opportunity to proffer its defence and also that it was aware of the proceedings.

We may also observe that after filing this petition in 2013, on this short point involved, the matter has been unnecessarily and unduly procrastinated before this Commission for almost 09 years. In fact the petition was dismissed in default vide this Commission’s Order dated 18.10.2019 but was then restored by Order dated 15.12.2021.

That besides, on merit alone, as already summed-up above, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order of the State Commission and find no good ground or reason or mitigating circumstance and as such the petition must necessarily fail.

6.       The petition stands dismissed.

The amount if any deposited by the insurance co. with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 11.12.2013 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the complainants as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the insurance co. within six weeks from today, failing which, the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

7.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.