Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs MANI RAM OF HISSAR

THIS is an application for the condonation of considerable delay in preferring the appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. By the order under appeal, the District Forum, Hissar has merely directed the payment of Rs. 7,865/- only against the respondent''s claim for reimbursement under the Medi-claim Insurance Policy validly executed with the appellant Insurance Company.

THE order under appeal was passed on the 12th of September, 1991. THE appeal however, was filed as late as 30th of October, 1991 well beyond the prescribed period of 30 days under Section 15 of the Act. In the application, it has been somewhat tenuously suggested that the period of limitation should run from the date when the appellant received a copy of the order by post on the 1st of October, 1991. Now within this jurisdiction, it is well settled that the terminus for computing the limitation under Section 15 of the Act runs from the date of the order under appeal alone. It is unnecessary to examine this matter afresh because it has been exhaustively dealt with in First Appeal No. 16 of 1990 ''Haryana State Electricity Board v. Dinesh Kumar'' decided on the 4th of February, 1991. I (1992) CPJ 359 Therein after a detailed discussion of the statutory provisions as also of precedent and principle, it has been concluded as under :- "The answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the terms that the period for determining the limitation prescribed by Section 15 of the Act runs from the date of the order under appeal and not from the any alleged date of the receipt of the copy thereof forwarded under Rule 4(10) of the rules."

The aforesaid view has then been reiterated again in I (1991) CPJ 672 ''Haryana Agro Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Virender Pal Singh & Anr''. Consequently the appellant''s stand that the limitation should be computed from the date of the alleged receipt of the copy of the order by post must be necessarily rejected.

EVEN otherwise, there is no merit in the ground pleaded for the condonation of delay. On the applicant''s own showing the copy of the order was duly received by them on the 1st of October, 1991. However, for a period of wellnigh one month there from, the appellant took no action and on their own averments they handed the papers over to the Counsel for filing the appeal on 29th of October, 1991. It is the applicant''s own case that the learned Counsel immediately informed them that limitation has to be counted from the 12th of September, 1991 being the date of the order under appeal. From the application and the supporting affidavit, it would appear that the appellant''s have only themselves to blame for the negligence and delay in filing the appeal beyond time. On the sketchy grounds given, it would obviously be a hardship to open the matter against the respondent consumer to whom a vested right in his favour has now accrued. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to find any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and the application is consequently rejected. Inevitably the appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.