DIV. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO vs MAHA LAXMI DEVI

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 20th May, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Dumka in complaint case No. 4 of 1992. The memo of appeal was presented before this Commission on 7.7.92 i.e. more than 30 days after the date of the impugned order. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act requires that the memo of appeal along with application has to be presented before this Commission within thirty days from the date of the impugned order and Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) enjoins that if the memo of appeal is not presented within that period an application supported by an affidavit have to be filed stating the circumstances under which the memo of appeal could not be filed within the specified period. But this was not done in the present case and on this ground alone the memo of appeal was fit to be rejected. But subsequently on 17th November, 1992 the appellant filed that application u/Rule 8 (4) of the Rules along with a affidavit. The learned Counsel for the appellant was heard.

IT has been mentioned in the application u/Rule 8 (4) that the application for the certified copy of the impugned order was filed on 5.6.92 and it was delivered to the learned Counsel for the O.P. before the District Forum on 6.6.92 and that it was communicated by him to the appellant, who received it on 28th June, 1992'' and within thirty days thereof the memo of appeal was presented before this Commission. Thus it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the memo of appeal has been presented within thirty days of the date on which the appellant got the knowledge of the impugned order. To decide this plea being taken on behalf of the appellant it is necessary to quote the impugned order which is very short one and reads as follows : - "The complainant agrees to accept Rs. 52,455.00 (Rupees Fifty-two thousand four hundered fifty five only) as compensation for the loss of vehicle. The O.P. undertakes to pay the amount within twenty days of this order. Put up on 10.6.92. The O.P. should bring the cheque in the name of the complainant on the date positively."

It is evident from the impugned order that it was passed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the appellant (opposite party before the District Forum) who undertook to pay the amount within twenty days of the impugned order. But it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the undertaking to pay the amount by the appellant''s Counsel Sri N.P. Mishra, before the District Forum "was without the instructions of the appellants" and the appellant had no knowledge of the impugned order before 28th June, 1992 on which date Sri Mishra, Advocate communicated the order to him (the appellant). It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel of the appellant that one Sri A.K. Mallick, A.A.O. of Assansole Divisional Office of the appellant was directed to hold inquiry and report as to how Sri Mishra, Advocate agreed to pay the amount and Sri Mallick was informed by Sri Mishra that he undertook to pay the amount "at his own risk without obtaining necessary instruction". These facts have been mentioned in the application u/Rule 98(4) also. One M.K. Sinha, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company posted at Patna has affidavited the application and stated in his affidavit that the contents of the petition along with the affidavit have been read over to him stood by him and they are true to his knowledge. But Sri Sinha has not stated in his affidavit that he came to know from Sri A.K. Malick that Sri Mishra, Advocate told him that he undertook to pay the amount at his own risk without obtaining necessary instructions. Neither the affidavit of Sri A.K. Mallick nor of Sri N.P. Mishra, Advocate has been filed to support this fact.

Moreover, Sri A.K. Mishra, Advocate was allowed to work and has been working on behalf of the O.P. in the case before the District Forum even after the O.P. (appellant) came to know of the impugned order. It appears from the ordersheet of the District Forum that on several dates thereafter Sri Mishra, Advocate went on seeking adjournment for the payment of the amount and he appeared on behalf of the opposite party before the District Forum in the case of and prayed for time for payment of that amount. We fail to understand as to why the appellant allowed Sri Mishra to appear on their behalf, if he had agreed to pay the amount without their consent.

UNDER these facts and circumstances we are not inclined to accept the plea being taken on behalf of the appellant and we find no merit in the application. In the result the prayer for condonation of delay is hereby refused and the appeal stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.