Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Venus and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
National Insurance Company
Limited and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.770 of 2008
(Against the Order dated 07/10/2007 in Appeal No. 3154 & 3155/2001 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 16.1.2018
M/s. Laxmi Auto Agencies at Rohtak- Shops were insured with the OP for the period 30.08.1995 to 29.08.1996- Around 5th Sept entire area flooded that damaged goods in the shop- OP still did not pay claims, so this complaint was filed- complainants should have produced Bank records in order to establish their claims- No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in State Commission’s orders- Revision petition dismissed.
Held: As already stated, there is a delay of 123 days in filing the present revision petition. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioners, in which it has been stated as follows:-
“3. That the delay has occurred in filing Special Leave Petition because of the reason that after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment, it was sought to take advice from the Local Advocate of the Petitioners and after the same was received from the Advocate it was suggested that it was fit case for filing Revision before this Hon’ble Commission as material evidence on record had not been taken into consideration.
4. That thereafter the Petitioners approached their Advocate in Punjab at Chandigarh and some time was spent in getting the annexure typed. As soon as the Annexure were typed, S.L.P. was filed before this Hon’ble Commission.”
A plain reading of the application for condonation of delay reveals that no cogent and convincing explanation has been provided by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Taking advice from a local Advocate or getting documents typed, is no ground for the condonation of delay. It is a settled legal proposition that unless proper reasons are put forward for explaining the delay, the same cannot be condoned. In case, the plea made by the petitioner is accepted, the provisions governing the law of limitation shall not be left with any sanctity, as the delay shall have to be condoned in each and every case. We, therefore, do not find any valid justification for the condonation of such delay of 123 days, and the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. We are supported in this contention by a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority”, [IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)], in which, it has been held that:-
“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 the orders of the Consumer Fora.”
Considering the merits of the case as well, it has been explained by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that a number of letters were sent by the surveyor to the complainants, asking them to send necessary documents so that their claim could be considered in the light of those documents. The complainants could at least send an interim reply to the surveyor, explaining their stand on the same. After receiving a number of letters, the complainants did send certain documents vide letter dated 24.01.1996, but the surveyor asked for more specific information/documents vide its letter dated 27.01.96. There is nothing on record to say, whether the complainants sent any reply to the said letter of the surveyor. Further, copies of the documents produced on record as pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainants, show that such documents have neither been signed nor authenticated by any person. The position regarding salvage etc. has also not been explained. The State Commission have, therefore, rightly observed that the complainants could have produced record from the Bank in support of their claim. The complainants could have produced statement of stocks furnished to the Bank or duplicate copies of the invoices etc. in support of their claim. The State Commission have also observed that the assessment order of the Department of Excise and Taxation showed the position as on 31.03.2015. It was the duty of the complainants to produce supporting documents or duplicate copies of the purchase bills etc. to establish that they were holding the stocks as claimed by them during the days of the floods.
Based on the discussion above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. There is no merit in this revision petition on grounds of limitation as well as on merits and the same is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 12 to 15)
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.07.2007, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeals No. 3154/2001 and 3155/2001 filed by the opposite party (OP) National Insurance Company Limited, vide which, while allowing both the appeals, the orders passed by the District Forum Rohtak in consumer complaints No. 517/1996 and 518/1996, partly allowing the said complaints, were set aside and the said consumer complaints were ordered to be dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that one Anil Trikha, since deceased, now being represented by his wife Venus and children, was running his automobile spare parts business through two separate firms, namely, (i) Anil Traders and (ii) M/s. Laxmi Auto Agencies at Rohtak city. The said shops had been insured with the opposite party (OP) National Insurance Company Limited for the period 30.08.1995 to 29.08.1996. On the night intervening 4th / 5th September 1995, the entire Rohtak City and the neighbouring areas experienced heavy floods, in which the shops of the complainants were sub-merged for a number of days, resulting in damage to the stock items stored in the said shops. It is stated that the entire stocks got fully submerged in flood waters 7 to 11 feet deep and remained so for about 19 – 20 days. A report was lodged with the local police station vide DDR No. 33 dated 25.09.95. The matter was also reported to the OP National Insurance Company, which appointed a surveyor, Digamber Lal Puri & Sons to assess the loss. However, following the failure of the Insurance Company to pay the claim, the consumer complaints, in question, were filed.
3. The complaint No. 517/1996 was filed by Anil Trikha before the District Forum Rohtak saying that he was proprietor of the shop, named and styled as Anil Traders that was insured with the Opposite Party Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.3 lakh, and the said insurance policy covered the risk of floods as well. However, despite sending the list of articles damaged during floods, to the surveyor and supplying the documents as per his demand, the claim was not paid by the OPs and hence, the instant consumer complaint was filed, seeking payment of the insured sum of Rs.3 lakh alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service.
4. The consumer complaint No. 518/96 has been filed by Anil Trikha and Sudarshna Rani, saying that both of them were proprietors of the shop named and styled as Laxmi Auto Agencies, where they used to do the business of spare parts and machinery of automobiles. The said shop was insured for a sum of Rs.3.5 lakh with the OP Insurance Company vide cover note No. 420602/48/34/95. The list of articles damaged had been supplied to the surveyor. The complainants had estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.3,50,667/-. The complaint was filed seeking directions to the Insurance Company to pay the insured sum of Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service.
5. Both the consumer complaints were resisted by the OP Insurance Company as well as by the surveyor by filing their written statements before the District Forum. The OP Insurance Company denied the contents of the complaints and stated that the surveyor appointed by them inspected the damaged site/goods to assess the loss caused due to floods. The insured was requested to provide supporting documents and other information, but he did not supply the documents despite writing six letters to him from time to time. The surveyor, therefore, recommended to the insurance company to close the file as ‘No Claim’. The complainants were, therefore, not entitled for payment of any part of the claim.
6. The surveyor/OP-2 also filed his written reply before the District Forum, in which they denied the facts stated in the complaint. It was also stated t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
