M/S. JAI MATA TEXTILES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. BABITA, W/O. SH. RAVINDER KUMAR vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ORS.

This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 16.01.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in consumer complaint No. 97/2014, filed by the present appellant, vide which the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed beyond the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of cause of action, as laid down in section 24A of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a proprietory concern, engaged in the business of Yarn, rags, blankets etc. They obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party, the United India Insurance Company for their building for 25 lakh, stocks for 35 lakh and machinery for 65 lakh. During the subsistence of the said policy, there was fire in the said unit on 27.04.2009 and according to the complainant, there was loss to the tune of 1,19,05,595/-. An intimation about the incident was immediately given to the insurance company on the very next day, i.e., 28.04.2009 and the said company deputed a surveyor/investigator to assess the loss. The surveyor recommended that the claim should be settled for 65,73,279/- after taking care of the excess clause of 10,000/-. The OP Insurance Company sanctioned the claim for a sum of 63,29,279/- and the said amount was received by the complainant on 01.05.2010. However, they filed the consumer complaint, in question, on 19.09.2014 claiming the rest of the amount from the Insurance Company. The State Commission vide impugned order held that the complaint should have been filed within 2 years of the date of cause of action, i.e., by 01.05.2012 and hence, the complaint being barred by limitation was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present appeal has been made.

There is a delay of 387 days in filing the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the order of the State Commission was passed on 16.01.2015, when their counsel was present before the State Commission, but the said counsel conveyed to the complainant about the award in the month of the October 2015 only. They applied for getting a certified copy of the order on 21.10.2015 and the said copy was received by them on 2.11.2015. However, further time was taken in obtaining the original case file from the previous counsel and then making efforts to engage a new counsel and drafting the memo of appeal. The appeal was filed in this Commission on 08.03.2016. The learned counsel argued that there was no intentional delay on their part and hence, the said delay should be condoned and appeal be heard on merits. When asked whether the complainant had initiated any action against their counsel before the State Commission for his failure to intimate them about the date of the order, the Learned Counsel replied in the negative.

Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a period of 30 days has been prescribed for filing appeals, after excluding the time taken for procuring the copy of the order of the Fora below. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant was present before the State Commission, when the impugned order was pronounced. There is no reasonable explanation for the huge delay of 387 days in filing the appeal. Although the appellant has stated that their counsel informed them about the impugned order in October 2015, i.e., after a delay of about 9 months, there is no evidence on record to justify this contention of the appellant. The appellants could have attached the version of the said counsel in this regard, giving the reasons for informing the complainant after a delay of 9 months. The appellants have also not initiated any action against the said counsel for his alleged lapse. However, even if the version of the appellants is true that they acquired knowledge about the impugned order in the month of October 2015, they have not been able to explain the further delay of about 4 to 5 months in filing the appeal. The appeal has been filed in this Commission on 08.03.2016 and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why there was further delay of about 4 months, when a copy of the order had been admittedly received by the appellants on 2.11.2015. Since there is no cogent and convincing reason to condone the delay in filing the said appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. There is enough justification in taking this view, keeping in mind the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court from time to time. A reference may be made to an order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", [IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)] , in which 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."

Even on merits, the complaint filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as rightly observed by the State Commission. As stated in the order of the State Commission, a sum of 63,29,279/- was received from the OP Insurance Company by the appellant/complainant on 01.05.2010. It is clear, therefore, that the cause of action accrued to them on that date. In accordance with the section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint could have been filed within two years from the date of cause of action, whereas the complaint, in question, was instituted before the State Commission on 19.09.2014. Further, the complainant did not make any request for condonation of delay in filing the complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission have, therefore, rightly dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground of limitation. The view taken by the State Commission is justified keeping in view the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121] " and in " Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768] ".

From the foregoing discussion, it is held that there is no force in this appeal, and the same is ordered to be dismissed on grounds of limitation as well as on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.