ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs Chhinder Kaur And Ors.

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "the State Commission") dated 31.1.2013 in first appeal No. 1018/2008 whereby the State Commission partly accepted the appeal preferred by the appellants/complainants and modified the order of the District Forum. Relevant directions of the State Commission are reproduced as under: - "In view of above decision, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 10.6.2008 passed by the District Forum, with above addition, is modified to the extent that the respondent is directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1.70 lacs from 29.3.2007 (Ex. R -5) i.e. the date when the claim was settled by the respondent on net off salvage basis, till realization. Rs. 10,000/ - (rupees ten thousand) are allowed as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order shall be made by the respondent within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the order."

IT may be noted that the petitioner/opposite party accepted the order of the District Forum and did not challenge the same. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 82 days. The petitioner has, therefore, moved an application for condonation of delay being IA/4605/2013. The explanation for delay is detailed in paras 6 to 8 of the application, which are reproduced as under: - "6. That it is humbly submitted that after deliberation and the DO sent the file to the Head Office situated at Delhi and the head office finally took a decision to challenge the order of ld. State Commission on 17.6.2013.

The file was then sent to concerned advocate for preparing the revision petition on 18.6.2013. Certain documents were required to file the petition before this Hon''ble Commission. Needless to say the case pertains to the Ferozepur, Punjab.

That the vacation was going on in courts when the file was handed over to the advocate. The concerned advocate and his staff were not available for the preparation of the petition. The courts opened on 1st July, 2013 and thereafter the present was prepared on urgent basis."

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional and it occurred because of bureaucratic delay in taking decision to file the revision petition. It is further contended that after the decision to file revision petition was taken, the advocate was contacted on 18.6.2013. Since the courts were closed and staff of the advocate was not available, sometime was taken in drafting of the revision petition, which was filed after the opening of courts in July, 2013.

BEFORE adverting to the explanation given by the petitioner, we may note that the dispute raised in this revision petition pertains to the 9% interest on a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/ - from 29.3.2007 till 7.8.2008 the date on which sum of Rs. 1,70,000/ - awarded by the District Forum was paid by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant. The quantum of interest calculated @ 9% from 29.3.2007 till 7.8.2008 is somewhere around Rs. 20,000/ -. If the litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/ - are added to this amount, the total amount comes to Rs. 30,000/ -. For this petty amount the petitioner using his financial powers has come to this Commission in revision petition. We are sure that for filing this revision petition, the petitioner must have spent more than Rs. 30,000/ - against lawyers fee and other sundry expenses. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. 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".

IN R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, : 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows: "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."

HON ''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, : IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed as under: "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 the light of the above -noted legal position, we do not find the explanation for delay in fling of revision satisfactory. Stand of the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay is that the head office of the petitioner company took decision to challenge the impugned order on 17.6.2013. Admittedly, free copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner on 26.2.2013. Thus, it is clear that the decision to file revision was taken 111 days after the receipt of free copy of the impugned order i.e. after the expiry of 90 days period of limitation provided under regulation 41(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. From this it is clear that the petitioner company was grossly negligent and it had no regard for the prescribed period for limitation. Otherwise also, no dates have been given to show how the file moved from one seat to other. Even if the courts were closed for vacation, the registry of NCDRC was open during vacations in June. Therefore, the explanation that revision petition could not be filed during vacations is also not acceptable. Thus, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of 82 days in filing of revision petition.

APPLICATION for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.