Mahesh Mittal vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

THE main controversy which swirls around the question is whether the revision petition filed in this Court is within time. The facts of this revision petition, briefly stated, are as follows: Petitioner-Mahesh Mittal purchased Marshal Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ 13 C- 5213 in the year 1998 for a sum of Rs. 3,68,000. The said jeep was got insured by the petitioner-Mahesh Mittal with the respondent-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. from 19.7.2000 to 18.7.2001 for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000. The jeep was stolen on 20.2.2001. The spot survey was got conducted by the Insurance Company and loss of jeep was assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000 taking into consideration the market value of the vehicle on the date of theft i.e.20.2.2001.

THE District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 3,75,000 along with interest @ 9% per annumw.e.f. 20.5.2001 and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as amount of compensation and costs. The State Commission reduced the said amount to Rs. 2,25,000 but granted interest @ 9%w.e.f. 20.5.2001 and reduced the compensation from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 only. The petitioner has already got the amount awarded by the State Commission.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before this Commission.

BEFORE deciding the case on merits, the petitioner will have to cross one hurdle i.e. application for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition. We have perused the averments made in the above said application. The revision petition was filed after a lapse of 154 days. In case 90 days are deducted, there is delay of 49 days in filing the revision petition.

IT is averred that delay caused was due to serious illness of the younger brother of the petitioner of facial paralysis and he was taken to Bombay for treatment. The application is dated 4.12.2006. It is averred that only on the last week petitioner could come down to Delhi for filing the present revision petition.

AT the very, outset, it may be mentioned that the above said application is vague, evasive and leads the Court nowhere. The name of the younger brother, the hospital where he was treated, etc. did not see the light of the day. No medical evidence was produced before the Court. No evidence regarding travel to Bombay was adduced. In absence of this significant evidence the explanation given by the petitioner appears to be a lame excuse.

RECENTLY , Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), laid down: "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 R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) SLT 701=I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), 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. "

In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 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 Section 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 inquiry 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. "

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also cited an authority in Appeal (Civil) No. 4662-463 of 1999 titled as V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao & Anr., IV (2005) SLT 410=II (2005) CLT 255 (SC), which neatly dovetails with the view taken above.

THIS is abhorrent from the principles of law to erase sufficient cause occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the plea of sympathy or generosity. As the petition is found to be time-barred, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.