NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and
Anup K Thakur, Member
Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd. -Petitioner
versus
Sunil Kumar Pandey -Respondent
Revision Petition No.1823 of 2016(Against the Order dated 26/03/2016 in Appeal No. 73/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 7.2.2018

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Insurance - Respondent had insured vehicle no. CJ 13 A 9825 with the petitioner/ opposite party vide policy no. 23036222000067 for the period from 23.05.2012 to 22.05.203- Vehicle of the respondent on 28/29th May 2012 near Lakah Gairwani Bye pass road in the side of Lakha Pahar was completely burnt in an accident- Petitioner did not make payment of the insurance amount – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order – Revision Petition dismissed.

       Held: The appeal is barred by limitation by one year and two months and no proper explanation, has been given. Thus, on the facts of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant (OP) is barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellant (OP) in the application filed for condonation of delay in filing appeal. In the said application, no sufficient ground, has been mentioned for condoning the delay in filing the appeal beyond the limitation, therefore, the appeal is barred by time.

       Thus, the application filed by the appellant (OP) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.”

       We agree with the State Commission that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for the inordinate delay of 13 months. The complaint was filed on 02.05.2014 and the order of the District Forum was passed on 24.12.2014. The petitioner has been dragging the matter since then to delay and deny the respondent/ complainant the awards of the order of the District Forum without any cogent or acceptable reasons.

       At the same time, it is also well settled that “sufficient cause” with regard to condonation of delay in each case, is a question of fact.

       In the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the Apex Court has highlighted the object of Consumer Protection Act particularly expeditious and in expensive remedy to the consumers.

        “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 Foras”.

       In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held:

        “The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]”.

       In Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

        “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

       Similarly in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi and Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that:

        “There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence.”

       In R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed:

        “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

       In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 11 to 18)