AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 11.9.2014, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as the ''State Commission'') in First Appeal No.707/2010, United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bhagirathi Godawari Aqua Pure Pvt. Ltd., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded dated 30.9.2010 in consumer complaint no.112 of 2010, filed by the present petitioner, was set aside and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed
The facts of the case are that the complainant company is engaged in production and supply of mineral water and they had obtained a loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the State Bank of Hyderabad for setting up their factory. The complainant had also obtained Standard Fire and Special Policy from the OP insurance company for covering the risk of stock of raw-material and finished products for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and the period of insurance was from 26.3.2009 to 25.3.2010. On 13.6.2009, there was fire due to short-circuit in the said factory, resulting in loss of Rs.29 lakhs as stated by the complainant. An intimation about the incident was given to the police which registered an FIR. The OP insurance company was also informed and claim lodged with them, following which, they appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. After obtaining the report of the surveyor, a compensation of Rs.8,34,239/- was given by the insurance company and paid directly to the State Bank of Hyderabad in the loan account of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 18.3.2013 to the insurance company claiming the balance amount of insurance of Rs.16,65,761/- (Rupees 25,00,000/- - Rs.8,34,239/-) . On the failure of the insurance company to respond to the notice, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the insurance company to pay the balance amount of Rs.16,65,761/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 30.11.2009 onwards. A compensation of Rs.30,000/- for financial loss and Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment was also asked for.
The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, passed their order on 30.9.2010, allowing the complaint in question, asking the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.10,54,224/- with 9% interest since the date of filing the complaint till realization. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the insurance company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint, saying that nothing more than the amount already paid to the complainant was payable. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
There is a huge delay of 559 days in filing the present revision petition. The impugned order is dated 11.9.2014, whereas the petition was filed on 21.6.2016. A copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner on 11.9.2014 itself and the petition was filed after the lapse a period of 649 days. After deducting the permissible period of 90 days, the delay in filing the petition comes to 559 days. In their application for condonation of delay, the petitioner have stated that the petitioner contacted the counsel at Delhi in the last week of February, 2015, although the impugned order was passed on 11.9.2014 . Due to mis-communication, the documents couriered by the petitioner could not be received by the counsel, since the same were lost by the security guard who failed to handover the same. It has been stated in the application for condonation of delay as follows:
"3. The petitioner consulted his counsel for further remedy and accordingly, it was advised to prefer Revision Petition against the impugned order.
That the petitioner had no direct contact with the counsel at Delhi therefore after consulting the local counsel the petitioner contacted the counsel at Delhi in the last week of Feb., 2015. After getting the details of procedure of filing the Revision Petition he forwarded all the necessary documents at Delhi through courier.
That due to miscommunication the documents couriered by the Petitioner could not be received by the counsel since the same was lost by the security guard, who filed to handover the courier. This happened when the counsel for the petitioner was out of station during the vacations.
That the petitioner was under impression that the papers have been received by the undersigned counsel and the undersigned/counsel was under impression that the documents were not forwarded. It was only in the month of May, 2016 the petitioner enquired about the matter at that time the entire picture was clear.
Thereafter, the petitioner forwarded all the documents and the matter was immediately prepared and got filed at the earliest. The delay occurred has been bonafidely explained and the cause of delay is due to loss of papers in transit."
A plain perusal of the version given by the petitioner reveals that although the impugned order of the State Commission was passed on 11.9.2014 and a copy of the same received by them the same day, they took time of more than 5 months for contacting the counsel at Delhi. The petitioners have not given any reason or explanation for the said delay in contacting the counsel at Delhi, although according to law, the permissible period for filing the revision petition is only 90 days. Further, the petitioners have stated that the documents were sent by courier to the counsel at Delhi, but the same could not be received by the counsel, as they were lost by the security guards who failed to handover the same. The counsel for petitioner was out of station during the vacation. The petitioner was under the impression that the said counsel had received the papers, whereas the counsel was under the impression that documents were not forwarded. Ultimately, it was after a period of more than one year that the petitioner enquired about the matter in May, 2016 and the entire picture was clear. The version given by the petitioner cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. In case, they were interested to challenge the order passed by the State Commission by way of revision petition, it was their duty to get in touch with their counsel at Delhi and ensure that the petition was promptly drafted and filed in time. In any case, they were supposed to put their signatures on the documents so prepared and hence, they were supposed to be in touch with the counsel at Delhi for the purpose. As per their version, they contacted the counsel in the month of May, 2016, i.e. after a time of 1 year and 3 months after making the first contact with him. It is quite evident that there is no cogent and convincing explanation at all for the inordinate delay in filing the said revision petition and there is no sufficient ground explained at all, giving any justification for condoning the said delay.
The matter has been examined in a number of judgements passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Commission from time to time. In the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it was observed ;
"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 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."
Based on the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, there is no justification for condoning the delay of 559 days in filing the present revision petition, as there are no sufficient grounds put forward for condoning the same. This revision petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
On merits also, the State Commission has amply brought out that the amount first assessed by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company was duly paid by the said company to the complainant. No valid reasons have been put forward in the consumer complaint for making departure from the said report of the surveyor. It is observed by the State Commission that the complainant did not have any proper and reliable record to support the quantity of stock as claimed by the complainant, to have existed at the time of the said incident of fire. The State Commission also observed that the figures of stock shown in the monthly statement submitted to the State Bank of Hyderabad did not tally with the figure shown in the books of accounts, rather there was a wide variation between the two. The stock of goods shown in the books of accounts as on 31.3.2009 was Rs.7,24,581/-, but the same was shown as Rs.21,51,018/- in the statement submitted to the Bank. The State Commission concluded that nothing more than the amount already paid by the insurance company to the complainant was payable. In the revision petition as well, the petitioners have not been able to explain the discrepancy in the monthly stock statement and the books of accounts.
Based on the discussion above, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed, being hopelessly barred by limitation as well as on merits.
There shall be no order as to costs.