ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs J.M. Khanna

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2010 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ?the State Commission?) in complaint case no. C?40/2001 filed by the respondent/complainant against the appellant/opposite party (OP) 1. By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint with the following observations and directions: "13. The complainant has placed on record copies of several bills to prove that he incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.23,936/- on the restoration/renovation of the flat. Thus by no yardstick of calculation, the total loss as alleged by the complainant can come to Rs.6,57,816/-. It has been deposed by Shri V. K. Mehtani in his affidavit filed in evidence by the OPs that the complainant incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,09,163/- as per record available with them. Since the OPs offered the complainant a sum of Rs.64,120/- we find their conduct unjustified. Thus declining payment of admitted due amount since 1999 by the OPs tantamounts to deficiency in service. 14. Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,09,163/- against the insured claim with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the complaint and a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. The OP shall also pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. 15. The OP shall make the entire payment within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realisation". [Emphasis supplied]

WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/OP 1. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 118 days. An application has also been filed seeking condonation of this delay on the following grounds: "2. That the applicant has received the decision of the State Commission, Delhi on 01.04.2010 under cover of DO. 21 letter dated 26.03.2010. A letter dated 09.04.2010 to D.O. 21 was sent for obtaining legal opinion from Advocate, thereafter, there was a reminder sent dated 19.05.2010 to D.O. in respect of the said case. Advocate Shri Narayan Sharma vide letter dated 27.05.2010 gave legal opinion for filing an appeal before the National Commission. C.A. vide note dated 11.06.2010 agreed to file appeal before the National Commission. Due to oversight the Advocate was asked vide letter dated 14.06.2010 to file RP in State Commission and case file was also sent to him for this purpose. Advocate Shri. R . N. Sharma vide letter dated 09.07.2010 returned the case file with the remarks that RP has to be filed in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and not with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Thereafter, on receipt of case file from Shri R. N. Sharma, Advocate, the file was sent to Head Office on 12.07.2010 and the department requested to file an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal. Thereafter, the said case was marked to the present counsel for filing the appeal before the NCDRC on 17.08.2010. That the head office has sent the file to the panel lawyer on dated 17.08.2010 and another time till date was taken for preparing the appeal".

It is clear from the narration above that the appellant has failed completely to show "sufficient cause" for this delay. The free copy of the impugned order of the State Commission was despatched on 09.03.2010 according to the endorsement of the State Commission?s office. The Divisional Office of the appellant/applicant at Cannaught Circus, New Delhi took nearly 15 days to merely forward this copy of the order to the Head Office of the appellant at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi for obtaining legal opinion on whether to file an appeal and this took as many as 48 days. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Head Office of the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay. The process of obtaining legal opinion and filing the application for condonation of delay thus took nearly seven weeks. Even after that, over a month was taken to file the appeal. The sequence of events only shows the lackadaisical attitude and conduct of the officials concerned of the appellant. The long delay of nearly 4 months cannot, therefore, be condoned on such untenable grounds. The appeal is thus liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

EVEN then, we have considered the merits of the matter. The State Commission has discarded the surveyor?s assessment on the basis of the affidavit of one V. K. Mehtani, Regional Manager of the appellant Insurance Company. The reason is obvious from paragraph 13 of the impugned order of the State Commission, viz., the position admitted by the said Regional Manager of the appellant. Considered from all angles, the impugned order of the State Commission is well-founded and the award reasonable and hence, there is no reason for us to interfere with the said order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed on the ground of uncondonable delay as well as on merits.