Aviva Life Insurance Co Ltd vs Mohinder Kaur W/O Gulshan Kumar

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 257 of 2013 Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Mohinder Kaur by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 9.10.2013 allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner to pay Rs.1,87,500/ - with 10% p.a. interest and was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - as cost of complaint. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order as appeal was filed after 70 days.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of reasonable explanation for condonation of delay, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application and dismissing appeal as barred by limitation, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and after condoning delay matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding it on merits. On the other hand, respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PETITIONER along with appeal filed application for condonation of delay before State Commission in which it was mentioned that copy of District Forum order dated 9.10.2013 was received on 23.10.2013 and clerk of the Counsel of the petitioner committed delay in dispatching copy to petitioner''s office and later on it was received on 21.11.2013 and Counsel was engaged for filing appeal. It was further mentioned that on account or urgent works in the house of Counsel for the petitioner, appeal could not be filed in time and it was filed on 5.2.2014 and in such circumstances, delay in filing appeal may be condoned. Learned State Commission after hearing appellant dismissed application and ultimately dismissed appeal as barred by limitation.

EARLIER in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr., 2010 5 SCC 459; (2) Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563 and (3) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,2012 2 CPC 3 this Commission was strict in condoning delay. 6. This Commission in R.P. No. 2021 -2022 of 2013 Jeevanti Devi Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. and Anr. dismissed revision petition as it was barred by 135 days, but Hon''ble Apex Court while allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 10120 10121 of 2014 Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors and Anr. observed as under: "Leave granted. The present appeals are directed against the order dated 14th August, 2013, whereby the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has declined to condone the delay of 135 days.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the revision should have been condoned and the controversy should have been addressed on merits. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, for disposal in accordance with law".

HON ''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10289 of 2014 A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India while allowing appeal, order dismissing revision petition as barred by 149 days was set aside and matter was remanded to this Commission for deciding revision petition on merits. Hon''ble Apex Court in C.A. No. 5071 of 2014 Taipen Traders Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawanti Cold Storage and Ors. while allowing appeal, order of this Commission refusing to condone delay of 218 days in filing revision petition was set aside and observed as under: "We have perused the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and considered the arguments advanced. On such consideration, we are of the view that the grounds assigned for the refusal to condone the delay does not merit approval. On the contrary, we are of the view that the delay is neither inordinate nor has remained unexplained".

IN the light of aforesaid latest judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court, we are of the view that delay of 70 days in filing appeal should have been condoned by learned State Commission subject to cost, as there was reasonable explanation for condonation of delay.

IN the light of aforesaid judgments, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 14.2.2014 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 257 of 2013 Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Mohinder Kaur is set aside and delay in filing appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/ - to respondent on or before next date before the State Commission and matter is remanded to the learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits.

PARTIES are directed to appear before State Commission on 12.1.2015.