GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER vs PUSPA DEVI & ORS.

IA No. 6400 of 2016 (Application for condonation of delay)

By this Application, Golden Trust Financial Services, Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 in the Complaint, pray for condonation of delay of 737 days in filing the Revision Petition, challenging the order dated 02.04.2014, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 538 of 2010. Explaining the said delay, it is stated in the Application that the delay in filing the Revision Petition occurred as Counsel for the Petitioner, who had been engaged to file the Appeal on its behalf, was never intimated about the preponing of the date of hearing in the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner as also in Appeal No. 427 of 2010, filed by the Insurance Company, against the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Sasaram (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 49 of 2009, at the behest of Respondent No.1/Complainant.

Upon notice, both the Respondents, i.e. the Complainant as well as the Insurance Company, are represented. In the replies filed on their behalf, the Application is vehemently opposed. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of delay in filing of the Revision Petition.

Having heard the learned Counsel and perused the orders passed by the State Commission from time to time in the afore-noted two Appeals, we do find incongruity in the orders passed by the State Commission while dealing with the two Appeals. For instance, although both the said Appeals were listed on the same date, i.e. 24.05.2013, the presence of Counsel for the Petitioner herein is recorded in Appeal No. 427 of 2010, while in the order in Appeal No. 538 of 2010, the same Counsel is shown to be absent. Evidently, there is error in the recording of presence of the Counsel for the Petitioner in either of the two orders.

Bearing in mind these facts, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of the afore-noted delay in filing the Revision Petition. Nevertheless, we do find that there has been some slackness on the part of the Petitioner in filing this Revision Petition, resulting in unnecessary harassment to the Complainant.

Resultantly, the Application is allowed and the delay of 737 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned, subject to the Petitioner paying to the Complainant a sum of 25,000/- as costs, within four weeks from today. The costs shall be remitted directly to the Complainant by means of a demand draft in her favour. Revision Petition

This Revision Petition by Golden Trust Financial Services, Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 in the Complaint is directed against the order dated 02.04.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 538 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 27.05.2010, passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 49 of 2009. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant against the Petitioner as well as the Insurance Company, Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein, alleging deficiency in service on their part in not settling the claim made by the Complainant under the Group Janta Personal Accident Policy, obtained by her husband, namely, Dharmendra Singh, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties to pay, jointly or severally, the assured sum of 5,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 1% per month from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization, along with litigation expenses, quantified at 2,000/-.

In short, the grievance of the Petitioner in this Revision Petition is that having forwarded the application along with all the requisite documents filed by the Complainant, to the Insurance Company, within two days of its receipt, the State Commission erred in law and on facts in holding that there was serious deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not deciding the claim since February, 2008. The submission is that the obligation of the Petitioner under the said Policy does not extend beyond transmitting the claim of an Insured along with the necessary documents to the Insurance Company, which it admittedly did within two days of its receipt. It is asserted that the delay, if any, in processing the claim cannot be attributed to the Petitioner.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, including the letter dated 28.02.2008, addressed by the Petitioner to the Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company and acknowledged by the Insurance Company on 29.02.2008, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the stand of the Petitioner. In the absence of any finding by the Fora below that there was delay on the part of the Petitioner in processing of the claim application, on any count, it cannot be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner relating to the claim in question.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed and the order impugned in this Revision Petition is set aside to the extent it makes the Petitioner jointly liable to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. Needless to clarify that since the Insurance Company has graciously accepted the order passed by the State Commission, inasmuch as it has not preferred any Revision Petition, it is obliged to comply with the directions issued in the impugned order, in totality.

It is pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that Execution proceedings have already been initiated against the Insurance Company as well as the Petitioner but probably due to the pendency of this Revision Petition, the District Forum has not taken adequate steps in getting the directions issued by the State Commission enforced. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company states that, according to his instructions, the principal amount along with interest, as directed, has already been deposited in the District Forum. If that be so, we direct the District Forum to release the said amount to the Complainant forthwith and also take steps to ensure that the directions issued in the order impugned in this Petition is complied with as expeditiously as possible. It goes without saying that this order will not preclude the Insurance Company to claim the amount, to be paid by it to the Complainant in terms of the impugned order, from the Petitioner, if it is otherwise legally entitled to.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that 50% of the principal amount, as directed vide order dated 09.09.2016, had been deposited in the District Forum. If that be so, it will be open to the Petitioner to withdraw the same on moving appropriate application in this behalf.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.