M/S. QUALITRONICS (MADRAS) PRIVATE LTD vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by impugned order dated 27.11.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, State Commission'') has filed this appeal.

Appellant filed Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2010 against Respondent/Opposite Party before State Commission on the ground, that a Skoda Car owned by Appellant''s Company which was duly insured with respondent, met with road accident on 19.10.2008 and was damaged. A claim was lodged but respondent failed to pay the same. Thus, alleging deficiency complaint was filed.

In written version filed by respondent it is stated, that claim of appellant is false, fabricated and suffers from too many infirmities. The insurance claim is based on utmost good faith and insured is duty bound to reveal the truth but appellant has failed to do so. There has been mis-representation on the part of appellant and as such complaint is not maintainable.

The State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed the complaint on the ground, that there has been suppression of material facts and infirmities in the claim lodged by the appellant.

Hence, present appeal.

As per appellant there is delay of 126 days in filing of appeal, whereas as per office notes there is delay of 185 days. Be that as it may, appellant has stated that it received the copy of impugned order dated 27.11.2013 on 03.01.2014. After receiving the same, it approached their counsel who appeared before the State Commission for getting copies of documents. Unfortunately, that counsel did not have the copies. So, appellant filed application for certified copies of documents. There was delay in getting the same as State Commission had shifted from Mandaveli to Park Town, Chennai. Thereafter, appellant filed an application under RTI Act on 4.4.2014 and documents were furnished on 26.04.2014. After receiving the documents, the appellant believed that in month of May there would be vacation in this Commission and as such appeal could be filed only in the month of June. Thus, present appeal was filed only on 06.08.2014.

It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

In Ram 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 & 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, Supreme Court 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 ."

11 . Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down 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 ."

Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court observed ;

" 4 . This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay ."

Therefore, we do not find any sufficient cause to condone the long delay of about six months. Moreover, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent, which cannot be deprived off lightly. Even on merits, State Commission held, that there has been suppression of material facts in furnishing the claim.

Accordingly, application for condonation of delay stand dismissed. Consequently, present appeal stand dismissed being barred by limitation.

No order as to cost.