Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, I/C President &
S. Bhujanga Rao, Member
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Doniparthi Sreenivasulu and Anr. —Respondents
FAIA No. 2815 of 2013
Decided on 13.11.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. N. Mohana Krishna, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Admission Stage.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere explanation is not sufficient for condoning delay in favour of applicant.
Headnote:(a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Appeal—Delay—Condonation—Procedure contemplated under Civil Procedure Code or provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings under Consumer Protection Act for ordering notice before resolving the issue—Matters have to be resolved by applying principles of natural justice, equity, etc. (Para 2)
(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Appeal—Delay—Delay of 162 days in filing of appeal—Parties seeking relief has to satisfy Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within time prescribed and explanation has to cover entire period of delay—A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time—Petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause to condone delay of 162 days in filing appeal—Administrative lapse on part of head office of petitioner company cannot be made platform to contend that delay in filing appeal is sufficient and justified—Mere explanation is not sufficient for condoning delay in favour of applicant—If it does not satisfy ingredients and that it does not reflect sufficient cause then application should be dismissed—When consistently routine and rigmarole facts are pleaded without any justification or proof condonation of exorbitant delay cannot be made—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7 to 10)
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, President—This is an appeal preferred by M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited against theORDER of the District Forum under Section 15 of CP, Act along with it an application F.A.I.A. No. 2815 of 2013 to condone delay of 162 days on the ground that theORDER was pronounced on 25.4.2013 and the copy ofORDER was delivered on 1.5.2013 and the Standing Counsel gave the copy of theORDER alongwith his opinion on 19.6.2013. The Divisional office in turn forwarded the file to Regional Office at Hyderabad and Regional Office sent the file to its Standing Counsel for opinion on 8.8.2013. The Standing Counsel returned the file along with his opinion on 22.8.2013 and later the case was entrusted to its Standing Counsel for filing appeal on 24.9.2013 and in the process a delay of 162 days was ensued.
2. In the light of the fact that delay was 162 days without any material whatsoever to substantiate the delay, we do not intend toORDER any notice to the respondent as no improvement could be made by the petitioner appellant. The procedure contemplated under Civil Procedure Code or provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act forORDERing notice before resolving the issue. The matters have to be resolved by applying principles of natural justice, equity, etc.
3. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner company has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal?
4. Evidently there has been delay of 162 days in filing of the appeal. The petitioner except stating that the copy of theORDER was received on 4.5.2013 and the Standing Counsel gave theORDER copy along with his opinion on 19.6.2013 and in turn the Divisional Office forwarded the file to the Regional Office and the Regional Office sent the file to its Standing Counsel for his opinion on 8.8.2013. Later, the case was entrusted to Standing Counsel for filing appeal on 24.9.2013.
5. The petitioner company submits that delay was caused in filing the appeal as the petitioner company has to seek administrative sanction to file the appeal and in the process the delay stated to have been caused in filing the appeal.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Agrawal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority1, opined:
“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 theORDERs of the Consumer Foras. With the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.”
7. The parties seeking relief has to satisfy the Court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. The petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. The administrative lapse on the part of the head office of the petitioner company cannot be made platform to contend that the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient and justified.
8. The respondents should not be denied the right accrued to them on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. If they receive summons or notices after a lapse of time they may be surprised and may not be able to comprehend as to when the litigation would come to an end. As was opined the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation is not sufficient for condoning the delay in favour o
