Delhi

StateCommission

A/1096/2014

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY KAPOOR - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Argument: 23.11.2015

Date of Decision: 30.11.2015

 

First Appeal-1096/2014

 

        In the Matter of:

               

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No. B-08, Unit No. 402 & 403, 4th Floor, GDITL Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Head Office: E-8 EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Legal Manager Mr. Raj Dev Tripathi                                                                                 ……Appellant     Versus   Vijay Kapoor (D) Through LRs S/o Sh. Gurcharan Kapoor, 1. Smt. Anju Kapoor (Wife) 2. Sh. Vivek Kumar (Son) 3. Sh. Ritek Kapoor, (Son) All R/o 18/32, Basant Nagar, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi-110007                                                                               …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.             The present appeal impuges order dated 01.08.2014 passed by District Forum, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint case no. 784/11.

2.             The complaint pertains to theft of vehicle No. DL0ILE4370 which was parked at A-11 Ramgarh near GTB Depot Jahagir Puri, Delhi which was a shop of repairing. The vehicle was stolen on 30.05.2009 and information was given to Police at phone no. 100. Information to insurance company was given on 31.05.2009. Surveyor was appointed and claim was repudiated on the ground that truck was with the repair shop and therefore the repairer should pay for it. Repudiation letter also mentioned that FIR No. 327/2009 was lodged on 08.06.2009, after 18 days, which was in violation of policy condition. Truck with self problem could not have been driven to commit theft.

3.             The District Forum found that complainant produced copy of DD No. 25B dated 31.05.2009 PS Jahangir Puri obtained by him under RTI Act. The same shows that information was given to the police on same day and complainant could not be blamed for delay in FIR. The unroadworthy truck could be removed by pull or crane etc to commit theft. The OP/appellant was held guilty of deficiency and directions have been issued to pay Rs. 2,60,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation till date of payment and Rs. 60,000/- was also allowed as compensation for deficiency.

4.             The appeal has been filed on 26.11.2014 and there is delay of 71 day in filing the appeal. The appellant has moved an application for condonation on the ground that the case file was not readily available, Sh. Sanjeet Trivedi, Advocate before District Forum was not responding for the last six months, and entire case file had to be reconstructed as pleadings was not available, the legal officer working on this matter before the District Forum had left the job of the appellant. Present counsel was assigned the matter on 12.11.2014 and then the present appeal was drafted in a week. The application is supported by affidavit of Sh. Rohit Sharma, Legal Officer of appellant.

5.             The respondent has filed a reply opposing the application. It has raised a preliminary objection that the delay is of more than 100 days. No cogent reason has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. On merits they stated that no document has been annexed with the application regarding ill health of the earlier counsel or appellant demanding the file from him.

6.             We have gone through the material and heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon decision of State Commission, Chandigarh in appeal No. 119/14 titled as Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suman Dhingra decided on 26.02.2014. In that case there was a delay of 122 days in filing appeal. After placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Vikram Das Vs. Financial Commisioner AIR 1997 SC (1221), it was held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task master and judicial interpretation had encased it within a narrow compass. A large number of case law had grown around section 5 of the Limitation Act, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time. Reliance was also placed on decision of Supreme Court in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipakao 2005 (II) RCR Criminal 414 in which it was held that to get appeal admitted or delay condoned, it is a condition precedent to first proof sufficient cause for exercise of discretion by the court in condoning the delay. Reliance was also placed on decision of National Commission in Revision Petition no. 3104/12 titled as Ram Kishan Vs. VNL decided on 03.12.2012 in which delay of 250 days was not condoned. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Consumer court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act object of which is expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes. The same will get defeated if court was to entertain highly belated petition against orders of Consumer Foras. The said decision was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cily Kallarackl Vs. Vehicle Factory IV (2012) CPJ 1. Ultimately, the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected.

7.             Coming to the facts of the case in hand, the application shows latches on the part of the appellant and nothing else. The affidavit of the previous counsel or the law officer who is alleged to have left the services of appellant has not been filed. Merely making simple bald allegations of the nature are not sufficient for condonation of delay.

8.             Applying the cited case law to the appeal in question, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as being barred by limitation.

                A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)