POST MASTER GENERAL , SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE , BRANCH POST MASTER vs Sasikala @ Raskala , Minor Hariharan , Periyathambi , Pottumani W/O Periathambi

REVISION Petition No. 2950 of 2013 has been filed against the impugned order dated 6.7.2012, passed in CMP No.1495 of 2011 in FASR No.1250 of 2011 by Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (short, "State Commission ").

AS per facts gleaned from the order of the District Forum, the husband of the Ist respondent/complainant, father of the 2nd respondent and sons of 3rd and 4th respondents of Selvaraj had joined as a member of the village postal Life Insurance Scheme dated 22.1.2005. When his Policy was in force, the said Selvaraj fell ill and he died on 8.5.2006. After the death of above said Selvaraj his father Pariyathambi and 3rd respondent of this petition had given a petition for his son ''s insurance claim to the petitioner dated 21.6.2007. The claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that ; That the policy holder of the deceased Selvaraj had taken a policy under the category of non -medical Insurance Policy. The deceased Selvaraj had paid the premium from 22.1.2005 to 19.4.2006 without any default. As per the conditions of the village postal Insurance Bond if the policy holder died before the completion of 3 years of the taking the policy, there is no necessity of a medical certificate for the claim. The policy holder can get claim amount along with the bonus amount. It was therefore, prayed by the respondents that they paid Rs.1,00,000/ - of policy amount and the bonus of the said amount and addition Rs.25,000/ - for their pain and sufferings and that the said amount should be paid with interest from the date of the complaint till the date of realization of the maturity amount.

THE petitioners in their written version filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudukkottai (short, ''District Forum '') stated as follows ; "This Forum has no jurisdiction to enquire this complaint. This complaint is not a consumer disputes. There is no direct agreement between the complainants and the opposite parties. The policy holder of deceased had suppressed the facts of his long term medical treatment and his incurable disease. Hence, the complainants are not legible to get as prayed by them. The liability of these respondents are restricted to the terms and conditions in the policy, subject to proof that there is no policy violation. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition. "

Based on the above, District Forum vide order dated 14.10.2010 ordered that ; "Finally, the opposite parties are hereby ordered to pay the maturity amount Rs.1,00,000/ - with bonus that is in the name of deceased Selvaraj Insurance Policy at the opposite party office. Therefore, it is awarded Rs.10,000/ - for their mental agony. This complaint is allowed and also the opposite party hereby ordered to pay 6% interest from the date of numbering of the complaint till date of realization for the maturity amount. The opposite parties are hereby ordered to pay Rs.1,000/ - for the cost of this case. It is pronounced by the President in the open forum. "

AGGRIEVED by order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. Vide order dated 6.7.2012, petition was dismissed in default on the following grounds ; "No representation for petitioner for the past two hearings. Today also there is no representation for the petitioner. Petitioner is also absent, though the case is specifically posted for the appearance, thereby showing the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petition on file. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default. "

Hence this revision petition.

ALONG with present petition, there is an application for condonation of delay of 180 days. However, as per office report, there is delay of 215 days. The reasons given for the delay are ; Shri N.Chandra Raj, ASGC No.11, 4th Cross Street, Trustpuram, Kadambakkam, Chennai was nominated by the Law Ministry to represent the case at the Hon ''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Though, the periodical reminders were sent to Shri N.Chandra Raj, Lawyer and his fee was also paid as per his demand, he did not send any report to this office on the appeal petition pending before the Hon ''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He even did not inform about his resignation to the appellants and as well as the Law Ministry. He put the appellants in dark on the other hand, he received all correspondences then and there. No registered letters were returned with remark as redirected, left, refused or otherwise. Had any registered letter was returned with any remark the appellants could have approached the Law Ministry again to nominate some other Government standing counsel to pursue the matter pending in the Hon ''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission due to non -receipt of any information from the lawyer in time the appellants could not know the proceedings of the said appeal till the receipt of the Docket order passed by the Hon ''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 6th July, 2012.

IT is pertinent to mention here that the Docket order was passed by the Hon ''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in the month of July, 2012 and received by the appellants in Nov., 2012. Then, only the appellants knew about the actual status of the said appeal. The appellant being a Government Department has once again approached to the Law Secretariat for their opinion and confirmation for appealing into the Hon ''ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Therefore, the delay has been occurred in filing the accompanying appeal. "

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully.

THE petitioner has not mentioned the date on which the impugned order was received in November, 2012. He could also give no evidence to show that it was received in November, 2012 and not on 11.10.2012, the date of application for duplicate copy. There is no mention as to when and why the free copy was not received. The fact remains that the petitioners were aware of the order of 6.7.2012 on 18.10.2012 when they applied for a duplicate copy of the said order. It is also apparent that the petitioner has failed to be present before the State Commission. He also failed to follow up the case either by attendance before the State Commission or follow up the matter with their counsel. There is no mention in the application whether any action has been taken against counsel. It is indeed strange that the petitioner was not even aware that their counsel has resigned. It has been stated in the application for condonation of delay that "No registered letters were returned with remark as redirected, left, refused or otherwise. Had any registered letter was returned with any remark the appellants could have approached the Law Ministry again to nominate some other Government standing counsel to pursue the matter pending before the State Commission. " Counsel for petitioner could not explain as to why no official of the petitioner approached or contacted the counsel directly in person when no response were being received to the letters being sent. This would show that the petitioner approached a very careless, casual and negligent manner in pursuing the case. The petitioner has failed to explain the day to day delay of 215 days and also failed to give sufficient cause to condone the delay.

RECENTLY , Apex Court in case Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV(2011) CPJ 63(SC) has observed ; "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 ".

HON ''ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held; "24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under; "29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time -limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts'' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest. "

The Court further observed ; "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red -tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. 31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 32. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs. "

UNDER these circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the long delay of 215 days in filing the present petition. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being hopelessly barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).

COST of Rs.5,000/ - to be paid by way of demand draft in the name of respondent No.1 and remaining cost of Rs.5,000/ - to be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account '' of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioners fail to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

SECRETARY Department of Posts should fix responsibility of the officials concerned who have dealt with this case in such a negligent and casual manner and recover the cost from them. List on 15.11.2013 for compliance.