The need to show sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the importance of interpreting insurance policy terms in line with the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes.

ORDER

Vinay Kumar, Presiding Member - This appeal has been filed with delay of 98 days. In the application for condonation of this delay, it is stated that certified copy of the impugned order of 4.10.2012 was obtained on 3.11.2012. The appeal itself was filed on 11.3.2013. In explanation of the manner in which the intervening period of nearly five months was utilised, the application merely states:

"3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the State Commission, the applicant immediately contacted the dealing Advocate and discussed the further steps to be taken. The Advocate advised that a Appeal ought to be filed since a State Commission failed to properly appreciate the evidence in the case.

4. The operating office then forwarded the files with all the evidences and Survey Report written arguments filed before the State Commission, etc. to the Head Office together with the opinion of the Advocate.

5. The Head Office consulted their Counsel and the Counsel after studying all the papers opined that there was miscarriage of justice and agreed with the opinion of the dealing Advocate to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Commission."

The above carries no explanation of the time spent in process of consultation at each stage. Nor does it give any idea of time taken in appointing an Advocate and in consultation with him before filing the appeal on 11.3.2013.

2. In terms of the provision in Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 appeal against an order passed by the State Commission is to be preferred before the National Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. The proviso to this section allows the National Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of this period of 30 days, if the Commission is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

3. The question of approach to such delay came up for consideration in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 8.7.2010 it was held:

"The party should show that besides acting bona fide, 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]"

4. Similarly, in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 4 CPJ 63 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 Foras."

5. In the present case, no details are forth coming. In the absence of any details in the condonation application, it is not possible to form any opinion whether there was any sufficient cause for the resultant delay of 98 days. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on account of delay alone.

6. Coming to the merits, a perusal of the record shows that the consumer complaint, decided in the impugned order, arose from repudiation of the claim of the Complainant under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy taken from the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company. The letter of repudiation issued on 11.11.2008 gives the following as the grounds for repudiation:

"Now you may appreciate that the cover of Loss, destruction or damage directly caused by Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood or Inundation of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy is intended to cover unusual perils that stem from atmospheric violence and no