Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs RAGHUNATH SHIVDAYAL TOTALA

THIS application is presented by and on behalf of the applicant/org. appellant herein, who are original O.Ps. in the complaint seeking condonation of 26 days delay in filing the appeal.

IN para 2 of the application, this is how the delay is sought to be explained. "The petitioners office at Jalna soon after receipt of the impugned judgment and order referred to their Pune Regional office who in turn forwarded to their Mumbai Regional Office No. 2 which took some time in satisfying themselves as to whether preferring an appeal would be in the interest of the company. They are due consultations decided to file appeal before this Hon''ble Commission". There is no reply filed by and on behalf of the respondents although served long back.

It needs to be stated that under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 30 days period is provided for filing of the appeal and if the appeal is filed beyond the said period, then on appealing party explaining satisfactorily the reason for delay, the Consumer Fora is empowered to condone the same.

WE are not convinced of the reason as assigned, in view of the fact that the higher Forum i.e., National Commission, as also Apex Court have repeatedly pointed out that the time consumed for inter departmental consultations at hierarchical set up cannot be accepted as a convincing explanation for the delay and this is the position as is the case in the matter herein. It is high time that considering the fact that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 postulates disposal of consumer disputes with expeditious despatch, the authorities like the Insurance Company against whom large number of consumer disputes are instituted should tune up their working in processing of consumer disputes before the Consumer Fora with expeditious despatch. One way it may be suggested that power in that behalf should be decentralised and made available at grass root level, since Consumer Fora have been established at District level everywhere in the country.

FURTHERMORE, we observe that in various matters in which Insurance Companies are parties, the appeals are accompanied with delay condonation applications, more or less assigning the identical reason as noticed in the matter herein. However, in view of settled position of the law, wherein the Apex Court has clearly posited in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katjji and Others, reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1353, that the Judicial Forums should not dispose of the delay condonation applications in casual manner, since it results in depriving the valuable rights accrued to the other party. Apex Court in the said decision has also reiterated well known doctrine of equality before law and as such no special privilege is enjoyed by the Government Authorities and, therefore, every one to be treated is equal before the law.

FURTHERMORE, Limitation Act is an enabling Statute and its provisions have to be construed strictly.

WE notice that in the matter herein the reason assigned is almost conventional one, which is being done almost in all the matters, wherein Insurance Companies as appellants approach in appeals, beyond period of limitation before this Commission. This Commission in somewhat similar situation has occasion to consider this aspect in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Tarini Nikhare, I (2004) CPJ 58=decided by this Commission on 24.3.2003 in Misc. Application No. 1539/2002 reported in (2003) 3 CLD, Pg. 606.

Dealing with the point of condonation of delay in the appeal filed by one of the Insurance Companies i.e., New India Assurance Co. Ltd., before the National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sukanti Paikray, reported in III (2003) CPJ 55 (NC)=2003 CTJ Page 760, wherein reason assigned was almost similar as done in the matter herein. We quote the same as has been done by the National Commission: "The certified copy of the order dated 31.1.2003 was received by the dealing Counsel, forwarded the certified copy along with his report to the Cuttack Divisional Office of the appellant on 18th February, 2003. The Cuttack Divisional Office forwarded the same along with the necessary observations and documents to the Regional Office on 6th March, 2003 who in turn forwarded the same to the Delhi Regional Office on 7th March, 2003 and the same were received by Delhi Regional Office on 14th March, 2003 and in the legal department on 17th March, 2003. The Delhi Regional Office sought certain clarifications from the Head Office vide letter dated 20th March, 2003. The file was sent for drafting the appeal on 23rd April, 2003 to the Lawyer who drafted the same and filed the present appeal. As such, there has been delay of sixty-two days in the filing of this appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but only on account of the facts and circumstances stated above. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice to condone the delay in filing of the appeal."

NATIONAL Commission, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, with a view: "We do not find these to be sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Explanation is usual delay in processing the cases in a heirarchient system where decision making is diffused. It has to be appreciated that an important right has occurred to the complainant which cannot be easily tampered with and sufficient grounds are not shown to condone the delay. In the circumstances, we are unable to entertain the appeal and is dismissed as barred by limitation."

However, on cursory glance at the material in the appeal that there is an arguable point on merits in favour of the appellants and that it would have repercussion on public monies, that we put the appellants on terms of payment of cost to compensate the other side i.e., respondent herein and are inclined to allow this application.

AT the same time, we are directing the appellant''s Advocate that he shall forward copy of this order to the concerned higher authority of the Insurance Company. We also direct the Registrar of this office to forward copy of this judgment to the concerned Ministry of Central Government with expectation that proper steps would be taken to appraise those concerned at the grass root level to be prompt in attendance of such matters to avoid loss to the public monies. ORDER 1. Application is allowed and delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Appellant shall pay cost in this application to the respondent/org. complainant quantified at Rs. 1,500/- to be paid within 4 weeks from today, time being condition precedent. 3. This order not to be treated as precedent as such in other matters. 4. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. 5. Registrar of this office is directed to forward copy of this judgment to the concerned Ministry of Central Government with expectation that proper steps would be taken to appraise those concerned at the grass root level to be prompt in attendance of such matters to avoid loss to the public monies.

Appeal allowed.