AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These four Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by PNB MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd., impleaded as Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against the orders, all dated 28.11.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.694 - 697 of 2016. By the impugned orders, the State Commission, while holding that no cogent reason to condone the delay of 98 days in filing the Appeals was furnished by the Petitioners, has declined to condone the said delay, and consequently dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation.
The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioners, questioning the correctness and legality of the orders, all dated 05.05.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patiala (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. CC/15/230, 232, 223, and 231 respectively, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant. By the said orders, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaints, had directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant, the beneficiary per Clause 21 of the terms and condition of the policies in question, the claim amounts, ranging between 8,50,000/- to 11,50,000/-, with compensation of 10,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at 5,000/-, in each of the Complaints.
Since the Revision Petitions are involving identical facts between the same parties and the common issue, these are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 3566 of 2016 is treated as the lead case and the circumstances, necessitating filing of the Complaints, as indicated hereinafter, are taken from the said Revision Petition. 3.1 The father of the Complainant, the Insured, namely, Jit Singh, had purchased Met Endowment Saving Plans, known as Met Suvidha Participating Plans from the Petitioners, in the assured sums of 10,41,663/-, 10,00,000/-, 11,50,000/- and 8,50,000/- respectively. While the Complainant was made the nominee in the policies in question, the premium in respect of the same was to be paid half-yearly. On 31.12.2014, by which time two/three installments had been paid, due to cardiac arrest the Insured died. The Complainant approached the Petitioners for releasing the assured sums under the policies and also completed the requisite formalities. After verifying the factum as regards death of the Insured from his village, the Complainant was informed by the Petitioners that the payment would be released to her within six month. When the Petitioners failed to keep their word, the Complainant made representations dated 11.05.2015 and 17.07.2015 and several emails to the Petitioners but of no avail.
3.2 In the aforesaid background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not honouring the claims, made in respect of the policies in question, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum. The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Petitioners to pay to her the amounts due under the said policies together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of lodging the claims till payment, besides 5,00,000/- as damages in each of the Complaints.
Upon notice, though the Petitioners put in appearance before the District Forum but, despite having been afforded ample opportunities, failed to file their Written Version before it.
On appreciation of the material available before it, the District Forum, as noted above, allowed the Complaints and issued the afore-noted directions.
Aggrieved, the Petitioners carried the matter further in Appeals to the State Commission. The State Commission has dismissed the Appeals on the ground of limitation, observing thus:
"3. ... The only ground seeking condonation of delay as projected is that on account of long process of sending the order to Mumbai and then to Gurgaon, the above delay took place. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act providing special period of limitation to file the appeal. The adjudication is by way of summary manner in this CP Act. Long and complicated procedure is not involved in deciding the matter under the CP Act. A valuable right has vested in the respondent of this appeal on account of above delay in filing the appeal. There is 98 days delay and applicants/appellants could not explain each days delay in filing the Appeals (sic). In the present set up on account of development of technology, the order could have been sent by email or fax to the quarter concerned without any loss of time. It is not believable that order was not brought to the knowledge of the main office at Mumbai and then at Gurgaon. The main offices of the company and its branches are linked with internet being the fastest source of communication. The technology has developed to an extent that even such matters can be sent to the overseas countries in no time. We find that legal right which has been vested in the respondent of this appeal on account of 98 days delay cannot be taken away by such flimsy excuses, as put forth by the applicants/appellants. The companies are equipped with modern technology and orders are communicated without taking any time. The ground projected for condonation of delay is not a sufficient one in our opinion to take away the legal right of respondent of this appeal which has vested in her by law by efflux of time. ..."
Hence, the present Revision Petitions.
Since the State Commission has not touched upon the merits of the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioners, the short question for consideration is whether or not it was justified in declining to exercise the discretion vested in it under First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act.
Bearing in mind the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, viz., ''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, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty, I am of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that a case for condonation of the said delay was not made out.
The delay of 98 days in filing the Appeals was sought to be explained by the Petitioners on the specious pleas that the copy of the order passed by the District Forum had been prepared on 10.05.2016 and was received thereafter at their Mumbai office, where-from it was sent to the Dealing Office at Gurgaon for filing the Appeals; decision for filing the Appeals was taken and Counsel was deputed for filing the same; the Counsel, who had defended the case before the District Forum, had been requested to provide the relevant documents; on receipt of the said documents, the file was sent to the Counsel and Appeals were prepared; and in this process there was delay of 98 days in filing the same. While the Application preferred by the Petitioners before the State Commission for condonation of the said delay was conspicuously silent with respect to the date-wise developments, taking place in the matter, from a perusal of the true copy of the order passed by the District Forum, it is clear that the Petitioners were duly represented by their Counsel and a copy of the order passed by the District Forum had been delivered, perhaps to him, by hand on 10.05.2016. Going by the same and bearing in mind the limited statutory period of 30 days, the Appeals were required to be filed on or before 09.06.2016. However, the same were filed with an inordinate delay of 98 days. Apart from the aforesaid bald pleas, no convincing reasons had been put-forth by the Petitioners for condonation thereof. The Counsel, representing the Petitioners before the District Forum, on receiving the copy of the order passed by the District Forum, must have informed them about the same, as it was to be complied in a time bound manner, failing which the default clause of paying interest was to be given effect to. It seems that the Petitioners, who were having full knowledge about the order passed by the District Forum, were not bothered by the directions issued to them by the District Forum and woke up only as per their convenience in September, 2016, when they preferred the Appeals before the State Commission with the aforesaid inordinate delay. The lethargy on the part of the Petitioners gets compounded by the fact that even after putting appearance before the District Forum, they chose not to file any Written Version, refuting the allegations levelled against them by the Complainant.
In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned decision by the State Commission, which is fortified by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 , decided on 17.12.2013, wherein the Apex Court had refused to condone the delay of even 13 days. I am convinced that condonation of the said delay by the State Commission would have caused further harassment to the Complainant, who, despite having favourable orders from the Fora below, is still not been able to enjoy the fruits thereof.
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, I am of the view that the State Commission, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, was justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the Appeals and consequently dismissing the same. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, warranting interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine.