BRANCH POST MASTER & ORS. vs MATRU DEVI W/O LATE JAI PRAKASH PANDIT

Late Shri Jai Prakash Pandit husband of the complainant submitted a proposal for obtaining Rural Post Life Insurance Policy, to the extent of Rs.2 lakh, at Kurtha Post Office and deposited an advance premium of Rs.490/- on 28.3.2007. He died on 20.5.2007 before the aforesaid proposal could be accepted. The proposal came to be accepted on 25.5.2007 without the Competent Authority being aware of the husband of the complainant having died in the meanwhile. The claim submitted by the complainant on the death of her husband having been rejected, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the proposal having not been accepted, no legally binding insurance policy could have been issued on the life of the deceased.

The District Forum vide its order dated 24.2.2012 directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh to the complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date on which the complaint was filed.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since there was a delay of as much as about three years in filing the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed.

Vide impugned order dated 11.2.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners as barred by limitation as well as on merits. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The first question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the abnormal delay of about three years in filing an appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. The application which the petitioners had filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of the said delay, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

"3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the advocate of the appellants never intimated about the judgement/order of the said complaint case No.27/11 which was delivered on 24.2.2012.

That these appellants were waiting for the result of the aforesaid case and several times contacted their lawyer concerned and they expected that their lawyer, will inform about the judgement/order of the aforesaid case.

That for the first time on 27.4.2015 the appellant No.1 came to know from one of his friends that D/W has been issued against him in Execution Case No.1/13 which was filed by the Matri Devi then and there he rush to the District Consumer Forum and enquired the matter from the office and came to know about the judgement/order dated 24.2.2012.

That thereafter on 28.4.2015 he applied for the certified copy of the entire order sheet and came to know about the judgement/order dated 24.2.2012.

That on the same day i.e. 28.4.2015 he informed the higher of the higher authority and as per direction/order of the higher authority, he applied for the certified copy of the execution case No.1/13 which was delivered to him on 6.5.2015.

That after obtaining the entire order sheet he submitted the same before the higher authority and obtained permission for filing an appeal before the State Commission.

That thereafter they contacted with the lawyer concerned and draft was prepared and sent for vetting and the same is being filed on after receiving the same."

It would thus be seen that only ground taken before the State Commission was that the petitioners were not aware of the order passed by the District Forum and the counsel who was representing before the District Forum had not conveyed the said order to the petitioners. The petitioners, however, have not filed any affidavit of the Advocate who was representing them before the District Forum and who allegedly did not convey the order of the District Forum to them. There is no explanation for not filing such an affidavit of the counsel. Moreover in case there was negligence on the part of the counsel, the petitioners would have made a complaint against them to the concerned Bar Council or at least would have removed him from the Government panel of Advocates. There is no averment in the complaint indicating either of the aforesaid two courses of action having been adopted by the petitioners. The inference, therefore, would be that there was no negligence on the part of the counsel and that is why no complaint against him was made to the concerned Bar Council and he was not removed from the panel of the Government Advocates.

As per the practice and regulations, every District Forum sends a free copy of its orders to the parties. Therefore, in the ordinary course of official business, the District Forum would have sent a copy of the order passed by it to the petitioners. There is no averment in the aforesaid application that no free copy of the order passed by the District Forum was received by the petitioners from the said forum. In the absence of such an averment, it can be safely inferred that a free copy of the order was received from the District Forum in due course. If this is so, the petitioners ought to have filed an appeal before the State Commission soon after receipt of the order passed by the District Forum instead of waiting for three years when an execution petition came to be filed against them.

It is alleged in para 5 of the application that on 27.4.2015, appellant No.1 before the State Commission, i.e., Branch Post Master Kurtha Bazar came to know from one of his friends that warrants had been issued against him in the execution case filed by the complainants and on coming to the know from him, he rushed to the District Forum and came to know about the order passed on 24.2.2012. However, neither any affidavit of the alleged friend of the Post Master was filed nor his name was disclosed in the application. The aforesaid plea, therefore, does not inspire confidence.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am in agreement with the State Commission that the petitioners have failed to justify the delay of almost three years in approaching the State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum on 24.2.2012. The State Commission, therefore, was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. Since the appeal was barred by limitation, I need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed on merits. However, while dismissing the revision petition, it is made clear that the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission in this case shall not constitute a binding precedent. The revision petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.