PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs ASHA AGARWAL

For the reasons stated in IA No. 2951 of 2015, the prayer for early hearing is allowed and the Revision Petition is taken up for consideration.

This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, against order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.759 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal on the ground of limitation. The said Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Raipur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 395 of 2012. The District Forum, while negating the contention of the Petitioner that at the time of taking the insurance policy in question there was suppression of material facts by the Insured, husband of the Respondent/Complainant, had allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent/Complainant a sum of 18,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of the Complaint, i.e. 01.10.2012, besides 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and 5000/- as litigation expenses.

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeal before the State Commission, however, with a delay of 4 months and 15 days. Application praying for condonation of the said delay had been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 3 to 6 of the said application, the explanation furnished for the delay was as under: "3. That the free copy of the order was made available on 27.05.2014 whereby it was sent to King Stubb & Kasiva, a Law firm who handle all matter on behalf of Appellant. The same took many days to travel from Raipur to Delhi via normal post. The Law Firm perused the order and given their detailed opinion via email dated 17.06.2014. However, as the Order was very heavy of 7 pages and never reach to any destination. The Appellant got to know only after receiving the Execution Petition on dated 10.10.2014. Further due to some Technical issues the email bounce back report has not been traceable. A copy of the email dated 17.06.2014 which sent by KSK Law Firm and Email dated 10.10.2014 i.e. the Execution Acknowledgment email are annexed here with and may be marked as Annexure-A.

That this Hon''ble Commission may note the fact that this event was an unavoidable Technical fault which was not imagined either by the Law firm or by the Appellant. However, later on perusal of the said order, the Legal Department of the Appellant further gone ahead taken experts suggestions and decided to file present Appeal and instructed their counsel at New Delhi to draft an Appeal. The order copy was further sent from the Bangalore Corporate Office to the Appellant Counsel at New Delhi. The Counsel at New Delhi further drafted the required Appeal based on impugned order and then sent to Bangalore Corporate Office for signing the draft and affidavit. The same was sent back to the Counsel at New Delhi and then finally to the main Counsel at Raipur. The process of sending documents usually takes place by private courier or normal post which consumes lot of time.

It is further submitted that the Head Office of the Appellant is located at Bangalore. The inputs/documents required for preparation of the appeal were to come from the said office at Bangalore. The relevant details/documents are collected from the concerned departments within the Bangalore Office, compiled and are than sent to the Legal Department which subsequently forwards the same to the Advocate handling a particular matter for preparing appeal. This entire process of collecting relevant documents further took time and hence the Appeal is being filed on this date.

That in the present case the draft of appeal was finalized within 48 hours and the same sent to the Applicant/Appellant for final approval. Appellant approved the draft of appeal memo on 15.10.2014 and forward the approved draft to the legal counsel at Delhi. Thereafter the counsel at New Delhi sent the Appeal to its local counsel at Raipur for filing the same and hence the Appeal was filed on this date." 4. The State Commission having held that the afore-extracted explanation does not make out a sufficient cause, we are required to consider whether the State Commission has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it for condoning the delay and in the process committed a jurisdictional error.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the said question.

It is trite that discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously, based on facts and circumstances of each case. ''Sufficient cause'' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour. It is equally well settled that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigor. An unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty and, therefore, limitation prevents deprivation of what one may have acquired. InP. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that judicially engrafted principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak and Anr., (1992) 1 SCC 225. Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in arriving at the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of the delay. Admittedly, the Petitioner had received the free certified copy of the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the District Forum, allowing the Complaint, on the very said date and the Law Firm, to which the present case had been assigned, had furnished its opinion on 17.06.2014. It is evident that after forwarding the order to the Law Firm, the Petitioner went into deep slumber and it was only on 10.10.2014, when they received notice in the Execution Application, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant for enforcement of the order passed by the District Forum, they woke up to instruct their Advocate at Delhi for taking necessary action in the matter. The said Advocate prepared the draft Appeal in due course of time, which was approved by the Petitioner on 15.10.2014. Yet, as indicated in the impugned order, the Appeal before the State Commission was filed on 12.11.2014, i.e. almost after one month of receipt of draft Appeal. The cumulative effect of lax processing of the matter by the Petitioner was that the Appeal was barred by limitation, as there was delay of over 4 months in filing the same, beyond the statutory period of 30 days provided under Section 15 of the Act for filing the same, for which no explanation is forthcoming from the Petitioner.

The Petitioner ought to have acted in the matter prudently and diligently, more so, when it had been burdened with heavy liability by the District Forum, but from a perusal of the afore-extracted explanation, it is clear that it was not so in these proceedings. Had the Petitioner not received the notice in the Execution, it would not have bothered to dig out the file and consequently there would have been much longer delay in filing the Appeal. In our view, the laxity on the part of the Petitioner is writ large and this Revision Petition is yet another attempt to prolong the litigation and to deprive the Respondent/Complainant of her right, which she had acquired on making of order by the District Forum in her Complaint, after the unfortunate demise of her husband. This is nothing but a sheer harassment to the Respondent/Complainant, which cannot be permitted.

Accordingly, bearing in mind the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are of the view that the State Commission, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, was fully justified in declining to condone delay of over 4 months in filing the Appeal and in dismissing the same on the ground of limitation. We do not read any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference in our limited Revisionary Jurisdiction under the Act.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.