Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, P.M and Mr. Prem Narain, Member
CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER - Appellants
Versus
RAJ GINNING INDUSTRIES - Respondent
First Appeal No. 134 of 2015 with I.A. No. 1134 of 2015, CC No. 44 of 2007, Complaint No. 44 of 2007.
Decided on : 19-02-2016
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of demonstrating 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods, and the need to exercise discretion judiciously in condoning delay, particularly in the context of consumer disputes.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Insurance Claim - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - [Section 24A, Section 21, Section 19] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 24A, Section 21, and Section 19, and their interpretation in the context of condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period and the need for a party to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court also highlighted the principle that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the party seeking condonation may not warrant a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The judgment underscored the significance of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes and the need to exercise discretion judiciously in condoning delay.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a consumer complaint seeking a higher insurance claim amount after a fire incident in their factory premises. The State Commission ordered the appellants to pay a specific sum with interest and costs. The appellants filed an appeal against this order, along with an application for condonation of delay of 129 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' delay in filing the appeal was bureaucratic and not supported by sufficient cause. It emphasized that a valuable right had accrued in favor of the respondent, and the grounds for condonation of delay were not deemed sufficient. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal on the point of limitation.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the appeal, the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, and the application of the statutory limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods, and the need to exercise discretion judiciously in condoning delay, particularly in the context of consumer disputes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal on the point of limitation, with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Appellants/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by impugned order dated 31.7.2014 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad (for short, 'State Commission') have filed this appeal. Along with, an application seeking condonation of delay of 129 days has also been filed.
2. Respondent/Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 2007 before the State Commission stating therein, that he is running an industry and has purchased 5(five) insurance policies for total worth of Rs. 2 cores from the appellants. On 28.1.2007 suddenly a fire took place in the factory premises of the respondent and stock worth Rs. 80 lakhs was destroyed. The appellants were duly informed and respondent submitted its claim.
3. Appellants sent a voucher of Rs. 21,76,245/- with covering letter dated 1.6.2007 which amount was not acceptable to the respondent. Accordingly, consumer complaint was filed praying that appellants be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,63,971/-.
4. The complaint was contested by the appellants.
5. The State Commission assessed the total loss as Rs. 29,92,623/- and deducted a sum of Rs. 21,76,421/- already paid to the respondent. Therefore, it ordered the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 8,16,202/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till payment. In addition, appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- being cost of the complaint.
6. Hence, the present appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay.
8. The grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought are, that due to the whole process of perusing, opining, decision making and drafting, it consumed time and thus delay has occurred.
9. In support, learned counsel for appellants relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Jagbir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 3635 of 2015, decided on April 16, 2015).
10. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent, that grounds stated in application for condonation of delay do not show any sufficient ground. The delay has been caused due to negligent acts of the officials of appellants.
11. Learned counsel for respondent has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 4 CPJ 63 (SC)."
12. The impugned order was passed on 31.7.2014 and copy of same was received by the appellants on 29.8.2014. It is appellants case, that order of State Commission along with opinion was sent to the appellants company's office at Ahmedabad on 5.9.2014. Thereafter, on 12.9.2014 it was decided to prefer an appeal before this Commission and file was sent to Regional Office at Delhi and was received on 18.9.2014. Finally, the matter was entrusted to the panel counsel in Delhi, in November, 2014. Since, certain documents were in regional language, translation of same was got done and file was sent back of the Regional Office in Delhi, on 9.1.2015. Thereafter, appeal has been filed on 13.2.2015.
13. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.
14. In Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, it has been observed;
"It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 Section 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 s
