M/S. COPIA BEVERAGES LIMITED vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by M/s Copia Beverages Limited, the Complainant, against the order dated 26.11.2015, passed by the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 6 of 2015. By the impugned order, while holding that the Respondents/Opposite Parties (for short "the Insurance Company") were justified in not indemnifying the Complainant for the alleged loss suffered on account of collapse of building wherein its stocks were stored, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint.

The Complainant, a Proprietorship concern, is an L-1 Dealer for distribution of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer etc. in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In respect of one of its godowns at Sauli Khad, Opposite RTO Office, Mandi, H.P., it had taken an insurance policy, viz. Fire Standard Policy, from the Insurance Company in the assured sum of 1,75,00,000/-. The said policy, which was issued after inspection of the building and stocks by the Surveyor, was valid for the period from 23.09.2012 to 22.09.2013. On 05.03.2013, in the evening at about 7.30 p.m., the insured building suddenly collapsed, damaging the entire stock of IMFL/Beer lying inside the building and the adjoining buildings as well. In this connection, not only the Complainant but the neighbours also lodged FIRs with the Police. Pursuant to receipt of intimation about the loss, the Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who visited the spot on 08.03.2013. Subsequently, the Complainant furnished a number of relevant documents to the Surveyor. On 17.01.2014, the Complainant preferred its claim, amounting to 98,94,115/-, with the Insurance Company. Sometimes in March/April, 2014 the Surveyor submitted his report, recommending settlement of the claim at 75,00,000/-. Even after a lapse of one year, when the Insurance Company did not settle the claim, on 23.04.2015 the Complainant filed the afore-noted Complaint before the State Commission, praying for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay to it a sum of 98,94,115/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of payment, besides a sum of 1,00,000/- as damages for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and 5,000/- as litigation costs.

As noted above, on being non-suited by the State Commission, the Complainant is before us in the present Appeal.

Despite service of notice on the Appellant and its Counsel for listing of the Appeal before the Circuit Bench at Shimla, neither anybody is present on their behalf nor any letter, praying for adjournment, has been circulated. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 111 days in filing the same. An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 2 - 3 of the Application, the Appellant has furnished the following short and crisp explanation: "2. That the counsel for the appellant enquired from the State Commission about any order having been passed by the State Commission and on coming to know about the same, a copy of the order was obtained by the counsel in the first week of March, 2016 from the Registry.

That the appellant instructed his counsel in Delhi in last week of March to file the appeal before Hon''ble National Commission. The appellant''s counsel asked for certain documents from the appellant which were made available to the appellant''s counsel on 12.04.2015."

In our view, the explanation furnished by the Appellant is vague to the core. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the Complainant was duly represented by a Counsel before the State Commission. Since the Complaint was dismissed by the State Commission, bearing in mind the limited time to challenge the same, the said Counsel must have informed the Complainant about the impugned order. While we fail to fathom any reason why the Complainant did not take any action in the matter for three months after passing of the impugned order, there is no indication in the Application as to how the Complainant came to know about the impugned order, at a later stage. Though the certified copy of the impugned order does not show that it has been issued to the Complainant in the first week of March, 2016, as is sought to be pleaded by the Complainant, yet, even after receipt of the impugned order, the Complainant took three weeks in instructing its Counsel to file the Appeal before this Commission. The said Counsel too took his merry time and after completing the necessary formalities ultimately filed the Appeal on 22.04.2016, whereas going by the admitted date of receipt of the impugned order it was required to be filed by the first week of April, 2016. In any case, the fact remains that the Appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 111 days, for which no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the Appellant and whatever has been pleaded in the Application, seems to be an after-thought. If the Appellant was really interested in challenging the impugned order, whereby the action of the Insurance Company in not indemnifying the loss, suffered by it, to the tune of 98,94,115/-, was held to be justified, it would have been on its toes to ensure that the Appeal was filed within time, at least after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, but that is not to be.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that the Application is not bonafide, the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of 111 days in filing of the present Appeal. Accordingly, we decline to condone the said delay.

Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed on the short ground of limitation. No costs.