UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs Indosin Ltd.

THIS appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Complaint No. 203 of 1998 - Indosin Ltd. Vs. The United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was allowed and OP was directed to pay to the complainant lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/ - and Rs.50,000/ - compensation towards mental agony and cost of litigation.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent had taken a marine Insurance Policy for his cargo from Romania to Mumbai Port from OP/Appellant. It was further alleged that consignment of 50 MT of Calcium Carbide was not received by complainant; hence, complainant filed claim on 30.12.1997 before the OP, which was not processed by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint. After hearing both the parties, learned State Commission allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/ - as compensation and Rs.50,000/ - as cost against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay and application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

APPELLANT filed application for condonation of delay. He has not mentioned the number of days to be condoned, but as per office report, there was delay of 301 days in filing appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that delay occurred, as certified copy of the order was not received in time and that too was misplaced; hence, delay in filing appeal may be condoned.

PARAGRAPHS 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay runs as under: ''''3. That there is a delay of___days in filing the present Appeal. The reason for delay in filing the Appeal is that the Delhi Regional Office of the Appellant Company which was supervising the case did not receive the certified copy of the Order till 23.3.2008 and, therefore, requested the Counsel to provide the certified copy of the order. After making the efforts, the Counsel replied to the Company by letter dated 10.3.2008. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Head Office of the Appellant Company. Since different cases are pending on the similar claims arising out of the said vessel M.V. Golden Sunlight filed by M/s. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (O.P. 245 of 1998) and M/s. Owens Brockway (O.P. No. 222 of 1998) are also pending adjudication before this Hon ''ble Commission and also by the complainant before this Hon ''ble Commission have been repudiated in view of the provisions of exclusion clause 4.6 of Institute Cargo Clauses (A) of the Transit Policy issued to them, it was decided to prefer Appeal before this Hon ''ble Commission and accordingly the file was referred to the Counsel in the third week of August, 2008 for filing the Appeal against the impugned order. Hence, the delay.

That the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Appeal ''''. Perusal of application makes it clear that no any reason has been given for delay in filing appeal. Perusal of photocopy of impugned order filed by the appellant with appeal clearly reveals that certified copy was received by appellant on 19.11.2007, whereas appellant has mentioned in the application that certified copy of the order was not received till 23.3.2008, which is absolutely false statement. Even if, it is presumed that appellant received certified copy of the order of 23.3.2008, appeal has been filed on 29.8.2008 and no explanation has been given for delay of 5 months in filing appeal. Inordinate delay of 301 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned in the light of following judgments of Hon ''ble Apex Court.

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. RewaCoalfields 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 Courtin (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 Courtin 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - AnshulAggarwal 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