Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SHRI PARIYOJNA NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 826 of 2016 from Order dated 11.8.2015 in Appeal No. FA/15/366 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur with IA Nos. 3065 and 3066 of 2016 (Stay, Condonation of Delay)
Decided on : 19-04-2016
Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate, for the Petitioner; None, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act, and the importance of prompt action and vigilance in legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Insurance Company - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Consumer Protection Act - Section 15 of the CPA
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an insurance company, filed an appeal and a revision petition with significant delays. The State Commission dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 199 days, and the petitioner sought condonation of delay for the revision petition, citing various reasons for the delays.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delays were unjustified and made lame excuses for the delays. The court emphasized the need for vigilance and prompt action, and highlighted the requirement of a 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delays in filing the appeal and revision petition, and the petitioner's justifications for the delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt action and vigilance, and highlighted the requirement of a 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The court also referenced various Supreme Court authorities to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the case, stating that it was hopelessly barred by time due to the significant delays.
Based on the provided legal document, the main legal points established are as follows:
-
The requirement of a "sufficient cause" for delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Consumer Protection Act is emphasized. The courts have underscored that delay must be justified with valid reasons, and mere excuses are insufficient if they lack substance (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The importance of vigilance and prompt action in legal proceedings is highlighted. Officers and representatives of parties involved are expected to act swiftly and decisively, especially when higher authorities' decisions are involved, to avoid unnecessary delays (!) (!) (!) .
-
The courts have consistently held that excessive delays without reasonable explanation are unjustified, and such delays lead to cases being barred by time. The courts have dismissed cases where delays are significant and not properly explained, reinforcing the principle that procedural timeliness is critical (!) (!) .
-
The concept of "sufficient cause" cannot be interpreted liberally to justify delays that are due to negligence or lack of vigilance. The courts have clarified that some cause must be genuinely "sufficient" to warrant condonation, and excessive or lame excuses are not acceptable (!) (!) (!) .
-
The courts have maintained a consistent stance that delays of substantial duration—such as several months—are generally not condoned unless compelling and justified reasons are provided. In the case at hand, the court found the delays to be unjustified and dismissed the case as hopelessly barred by time (!) (!) .
-
Overall, the judgment underscores that procedural diligence and timely filing are fundamental to the justice process, and failure to adhere to these principles results in cases being dismissed on the grounds of delay. The courts have reinforced that delay cannot be condoned merely because of procedural or administrative issues unless a "sufficient cause" is convincingly demonstrated (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principle established is that delay in legal proceedings must be justified with a "sufficient cause," and courts will rigorously scrutinize excuses for delays, dismissing cases that are hopelessly barred by time due to unjustified tardiness.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Counsel for the petitioner heard. The State Commission dismissed the appeal because there was delay of 199 days, i.e., 6 months and 19 days and no reasonable explanation was given for that delay. We have perused the application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal. The delay is explained in Para No. 3. Para No. 4 is missing, then there is para No. 5. Both the paras are reproduced here as under
"(3) That the instant appeal is filed with a delay of about ........... days. The copy of order was sent by the Counsel and the same was sent to its higher authority Mumbai. It was suggested by the higher authority Mumbai to seek legal opinion with regard to wing of the appeal from the Counsel and sent entire documents to the concerned Counsel.
(5) Thereafter the concerned Counsel has sent his opinion to the higher authority Mumbai for final decision with regard to filing of the appeal. Thereafter decision to file an appeal against the order of learned Dist. Forum was taken by the applicant and sent the entire file to its Counsel for drafting of memo appeal and the same was prepared by the Counsel and sent a draft of memo of appeal to higher authority of the appellant and sent a request on to concerned department of the applicant for permitting preparation of a cheque for Rs. 25,000 in compliance of Proviso of Section 15 of the CPA and sent entire file to concerned department."
2. In view of number of authorities laid down by the Apex Court, it appears that the petitioner-Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. has not learnt a lesson. Day-to-day delay was never explained. The delay of 199 days is a huge delay.
3. Secondly, there is further delay of 127 days in filing this Revision Petition. Warning bells should have rung, but the petitioner is so negligent that it did not care for the order passed by the State Commission. Application for condonation of delay has also been filed along with this Revision Petition. Delay has been explained in para Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which are reproduced here as under:
"5. That the copy of the order filed by the respondent was received by the Counsel on 21.9.2015 and subsequently was forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner, after receiving the copies of both the judgments, sought the opinion of the defending Counsel and the Counsel at Pandri, Raipur studied the judgment, prepared his opinion and sent the opinion to the Raipur office of the Petitioner somewhere in 1st week of October, 2015. The Raipur office of the Petitioner in turn sent the same to the Delhi office of the Petitioner. The Delhi office of the Petitioner thereafter sent the impugned judgment to its Counsel in Delhi for the legal opinion approximately during the last week of October, 2015.
6. That thereafter the Counsel for petitioner in Delhi examined the case and all the documents and gave the opinion on 19.11.2015.
7. That on obtaining the legal opinion from the Counsel in Delhi, the entire file was sent to the Mumbai office of the Petitioner for further processing and approval. That the approval to file the Revision Petition was received somewhere in 1st week of December, 2015, however, inadvertently the Delhi office failed to communicate the same to the Counsel till end of February, 2016."
4. It is thus clear that the petitioner has made lame excuses. In view of the latest law prevailing in this country, the petitioner should have been vigilant and prompt. Decisions of the higher authorities should have been sought, in a jiffy. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting the excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and C.P. Act. There must be some cause, which can be termed as a 'sufficient one' for the purpose of delay condonation. The officers of the Insurance Company should not sit over the documents, they should decide the case immediately. For such a huge delay, petition i
