DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE vs RATHOD LAKHMANBHAI MULJIBHA

By these Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Director, Directorate of Insurance, Government of Gujarat, one of the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of different orders, all dated 18.10.2016, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in CMAs No. 944, 949 and 950 of 2015. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay, ranging between 138 and 150 days, in filing the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, and consequently dismissed the same.

The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioner against the orders dated 24.06.2015, 31.07.2015 and 15.07.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Junagarh (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 6, 83 and 71 of 2015 respectively. By the said orders, while allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Complainants, Respondents in these Revision Petitions, against the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner, for not honouring the insurance claims made by them, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay the assured amount of 1,00,000/- to each of the Complainants, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints, besides 5,000/- each towards litigation costs.

In these cases, the Complainant in Complaint Case No. 6 of 2015 had met with a vehicular accident on 22.08.2013, resulting in amputation of his right leg and some other grievous injuries, while the husbands of the Complainants in other Complaints, i.e. Complaint Cases No. 83 and 71 of 2015, had passed away, on account of vehicular accidents on 19.07.2014 and 04.04.2014 respectively. Being the beneficiary/nominee of the assured(s), who were holding insurance coverage of 1,00,000/- each, under the State of Gujarat Accident Group Insurance Scheme for unorganized labourers, the Complainants had preferred their respective claims, along with the relevant papers, with the Petitioner herein, through the other Opposite Parties. However, the insurance amount was not paid by the Petitioner. Under the circumstances, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainants had, inter alia, prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to pay to them the aforesaid insurance amount.

Upon contest, the District Forum allowed the Complaints and issued the afore-noted directions to the Petitioner.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeals before the State Commission, with a delay, ranging between 138 and 150 days. For condonation of the said delay, the Petitioner had also filed identical Applications, except for variation in the dates of passing of the orders by the District Forum and receipt thereof by the Petitioner. Accordingly, we propose to examine the explanation furnished in CMA No. 944 of 2015, which would govern all the cases. In the said Application, following short and crisp explanation had been furnished: "Above judgment was passed on 24/06/2015 and I have received certified copy of the order on 29/06/2015. The appeal may have been filed within 30 days of this date i.e. 29/7/15, but as myself the appellant is serving the Government of Gujarat office, I was supposed to seek permission from our higher authorities Finance Department and Legal Department, therefore for the same the delay of 138 has been caused, be pleased to condone delay."

As noted above, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay and, consequently, the Appeals have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.

Having considered the decision of the State Commission in the light of the afore-extracted explanation, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the Revision Petitions.

Admittedly, the certified copy of the final order(s) passed by the District Forum, disposing of the Complaint(s), had been received by the Petitioner on 29.06.2015 and, accordingly, bearing in mind the relevant provisions as regards filing of the Appeals against the same, the Petitioner was required to file the Appeals within a period of 30 days. However, the same were filed with the admitted delay of 138 - 150 days. The said delay was sought to be explained on the standard defence that being a Public Sector Undertaking, the delay occurred in obtaining necessary permission/approval from other Government Departments. Except for the said bald plea, no other convincing explanation had been offered by the Petitioner for condonation of the delay. In the absence of any details regarding movement of the files from desk to desk, though not very relevant, yet it can safely be inferred that even after receiving the certified copy of the orders passed by the District Forum, on 29.06.2015, the Petitioner did not show any sense of urgency in processing the files expeditiously to ensure that the Appeals were filed within time. Such casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563 . We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Petitioner had failed to make out any cause, much less a ?sufficient cause? for condonation of aforesaid inordinate in filing the Appeals and the State Commission did not commit any jurisdictional error in rejecting the Applications, seeking condonation of delay.

In this view of the matter, when we are equally not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for condonation of inordinate delay of 138 - 150 days in filing the Appeals, no fault can be found with the impugned orders.

Resultantly, the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed in limine accordingly .