Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
M/s. Prakash Road Lines Corporation Pvt. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2570 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 30/05/2013 in Appeal No. 662/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 22.7.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anjan Sinha, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Long delay of 286 days in filing of revision petition cannot be condoned.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Revision—Limitation—No sufficient cause has been shown by petitioner on which condonation of delay has been sought—No grounds made out for condoning long delay of 286 days—A valuable legal right has accrued in favour of respondent which cannot be brushed aside lightly—Petitioner had tampered with insurance policy and caused material regularities—No reasons to disagree with well-reasoned order passed by State Commission—Revision petition is not maintainable on limitation as well as on merits—Revision petition being barred by limitation as well as on merits, stand dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. (Paras 18 and 20)
Result : Revision Petition dismissed.
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Complainant being aggrieved by impugned order dated 30.5.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short, ‘State Commission’), vide which appeal filed by Respondents/Opposite Parties was allowed and complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was dismissed, has filed this revision petition. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 286 days in filing this petition has also been filed.
2. Brief facts are that petitioner has a business of transport agency and owns several goods vehicles (Nos.UP33T/0452, UP33T/53,/UP33T/0454,/UP33T/0455) other than, Truck bearing No. UP 33T/ 0451 which was duly insured with Respondents under policy No. 510100/31/06/01/08382 for the period from 20.01.2007 to 19.01.2008 . On 07.11.2007, said Truck was parked at Transport Nagar near Dimna Road, Jamsedpur, against parking Token No. 267243 dated 07.11.2007, by the driver, Md. Harul, who was ‘given leave’ on the ground of Dewali of Chat Puja . All necessary documents were lying under lock and key with the said vehicle. On 15.11.2007, at about 4 p.m Mr. P.C. Jain, Branch Manager of petitioner’s firm Jamsedpur area went to the parking place but did not find the vehicle. After enquiry, he did not get any satisfactory reply from the Security Area Manager. The loss of the Truck was informed to Mango P.S. in a written complaint on 17.11.2007 and a criminal case was started before the Ld. Court of CJM, Jamsedpur being No.46/2008. Respondents were informed of the incident and a claim for the loss was lodged. The claim was repudiated by letter No. 510100/07/196/OD dated 25.8.2009, on the ground that as per report of the investigator, the loss of vehicle was a case of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and not a case of theft under Section 379 IPC. Hence, a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Act, was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II(for short, ‘District Forum’).
3. Respondents filed their written statement, denying therein all allegations with the defence, that case was not maintainable as the subject Truck having engine No.60A62 451845 and chassis No.426031ATZ 001496, was not insured with the Insurance Company. Truck that was covered by policy No 510100/31/06/0100008382 had engine No. 160A624518491849 and Chassis No. 426031A72001506. Further, case was a criminal breach of trust and it did not attract the provisions of the Act.
4. District Forum vide order dated 18.06.2012, allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs.9,98,400/- for the loss of truck No. UP-33T/0451 along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost.
5. Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same and dismissed the consumer complaint.
6. Hence, the present revision.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
8. Admittedly, there is a delay of 286 days in filing of present revision. The impugned order was passed on 30.05.2013. Certified copy of the same was received by the petitioner on 12.06.2013. The revision petition was filed before this Commission on 23.06.2014.
9. As per application for condonation of delay, the main grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under;
“2. That the Director of the Petitioner Company Sh. Vishal Surekha was not in good health for quite some time. He has been suffering from ………………….., and upon so prolong treatments, he could not advance the cause namely the filing of the present Revision Petition in time. More so, his financial conditions as well as that of the Revision Petitioner was not sound enough to instruct the present counsel for filing and prosecuting the present Petition in time. Due to such deterioration of health and that weak economic situations, Revision Petition got delayed in filing in time. That he was also so depressed, shattered an
