ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD , The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs P.V. Balakrishnan , Tower Assistance Limited , Mercury International Assistance And Claims Ltd.

THIS appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in OP No. 28/03 vide which the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 in this appeal, i.e., Mr. P.V. Balakrishnan, was allowed and the OPs which are appellant no. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 2 and 3 in the present appeal, were held jointly and severally liable and were asked to settle the claim of the complainant / respondent no. 1 within two months from the receipt of the order, failing which they would be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. They were also held liable for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.10,000/- and were asked to make payment to the complainant within the said period. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed before us. A preliminary examination of the first appeal revealed that the same has been filed after a delay of 263 days. The impugned order is dated 19.04.2012 and is reported to have been received by the appellant on that very date. However, the complaint was filed on 06.02.2013, i.e., after a period of 293 days from the order and after taking into account the permissible period of 30 days, there is a delay of 263 days in filing the appeal. Of course, the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal.

AT the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, in response to which, he has drawn our attention to the contentions raised in the application for condonation of delay. It has been stated therein that an officer was deputed by the appellant insurance company to contact the counsel before the State Commission, after they got intimation about the impugned order from the counsel. However, the entire file of the case got misplaced and could not be traced until order was received for recovery of amount, in question, from the State Commission. The requisite legal opinion was obtained and file was sent to the counsel for drafting and filing the appeal before the National Commission. We have examined the matter on record and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The reasons advanced by the appellant for huge delay of 263 days do not appear to be convincing from any yardstick. Even if, the file was misplaced by the appellant, they could have obtained another coy of the order of the State Commission and proceeded further for filing the appeal etc. but no action was taken till the order was received under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for execution of the said order. We, therefore, find no justification for condonation of delay in the present case.

IN R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been 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. "

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. "

Hon ''ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under: "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. "

HON ''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

HON ''ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Ansul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 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 ".

It is quite evident from a perusal of the latest orders of the Hon ''ble Apex Court that unless sufficient cause is shown for not filing the revision petition / appeal within the stipulated time, the delay should not be condoned. It has been specifically observed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing the appeals and revision petitions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated, if the courts were to entertain highly belated petitions.

BASED on the discussion above, application for condonation of delay deserves rejection and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself with no order as to costs.

STATUTORY amount deposited along with accrued interest, if any, be released in favour of the appellant.