KRISHAN SINGH vs Future General Insurance Co. Ltd

REVISION petition no. 2717 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.09.2011 in First Appeal no. 1763 of 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (additional bench) ( ''the State Commission '').

THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased a Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 06 S 6031 from one Paramjeet and got the same insured with OPs for Rs.38,000/ - for the period from 09.09.2009 to 08.09.2009, vide policy & certificate no. 2008 -V 2006 1933 - FTW and cover note no. A 0846506. When the petitioner parked the above said motorcycle under the flyover, Assandh Road, Panipat after locking it on 28.11.2008, the same was stolen by some unknown person. The petitioner informed the policy of PS City Panipat in this regard immediately but the police registered the case on 03.12.2008. The petitioner also informed the respondents/ opposite parties regarding the theft of the motorcycle on the same day and complete the requisite formalities including submission of untraceable report dated 10.04.2009 but the respondents have not settled his claim so far despite repeated requests. Respondent no. 2 / OP 2 repudiated the claim on the ground of non -insurable interest of Paramjeet Singh who was insured of OP 2 and had already sold the vehicle to the petitioner/complainant on 05.09.2008 but the policy still existed in the name of insured Paramjeet Singh. Thus the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to any claim. Respondent no. 2/ OP 2 denied any deficiency in service on their part.

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat ( ''the District Forum '') while allowing the complaint ordered as under: "We hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to the OPs to pay Rs.34,000/ - to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. Cost of litigation to the sum of Rs.2,200/ - is also allowed to be paid by OPs to the complainant. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of announcement of this order ".

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the respondents / OP 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 09.09.2011 came to the conclusion that: "It is an admitted case between the parties that motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 06 S 6031 stolen by some unknown persons on 28.11.2008 when it was parked under the Flyover, Assandh Road Panipat, Learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the ground that on the date of alleged theft the registration certificate as well as insurance policy stands in the name of its previous owner Paramjeet Singh and appellants/ opposite parties are not liable to pay any insurable benefits to the complainant. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that the learned District Forum has committed great error while accepting the complaint by ignoring the actual and factual position on record because on the date of alleged that of motorcycle in question the complaint was not the owner of the motorcycle and insurance policy also stands in the name of Paramjeet Singh from whom the said motorcycle was purchased by the complainant. As such impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed ".

Hence, the present revision petition. Along with the present revision petition an application for condonation of delay of 26 days has been filed. However, as per the office report, there is a delay of 531 days. The impugned order was passed on 09.09.2011 and the revision petition has been filed on 22.07.2013. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are as under:

THE impugned order was passed by Hon ''ble State Commission on 09.09.2011 and certified copy was supplied to the counsel on 09.11.2011. It is submitted that counsel for the petitioner at Chandigarh failed to communicate about the impugned order to the petitioner and later on when petitioner contacted him to know about the status of appeal, petitioner was informed of the impugned order. Thereafter, he immediately applied for a certified copy of the impugned order on 26.03.2013 and was delivered on the same day. Since First Appeal was allowed 2 years back the counsel for the petitioner failed to deliver the record of the appeal to the petitioner and accordingly petitioner procured the record from his District Court Counsel and accordingly, came down to Delhi on 15.07.2013 and met his counsel. After perusing the papers present revision petition was drafted and filed on today. It is submitted that there is some delay in filing the present petition which is not intentional and deliberate one on the part of the petitioner and same is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice otherwise petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardships.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner in person and have also gone through the records of the case. The petitioner has failed to give reasons for the day -to -day delay. The petitioner has failed to provide ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 531 days. This view is further supported by the following authorities: The apex court in the case of In AnshulAggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that: "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 Banshivs Lakshmi Narain - 1993 (I) RLR 68 it was held that reasons for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer ''s office and enquired about the case, especially when the case was regarding deposit of arrears of rent.

IN BhandariDass vs Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor he did send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone the delay. In BalwantSingh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] ".

INRAM 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. "

SIMILARLY , in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi and Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that; "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence. "

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. "

ACCORDINGLY , we find that there is no ''sufficient cause '' to condone the long delay of 531 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/ - (rupees five thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/ - by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account '' of this Commission within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 6th December, 2013 for compliance.