United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Paramjit Kumar

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 04.04.2012 passed by the learned Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in F.A. No.456/2008 United India Insurance Company Vs. Paramjit Kumar by which appeal was dismissed and order of District Forum was affirmed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant-respondent got his Tata Safari bearing Regn. No. PB-23-A-6093 insured with the petitioner-opposite party from 04.05.1999 to 03.05.2000. The said vehicle caught fire on 13.3.2000 resulting in loss of Rs.1,10,000/- to the vehicle. Opposite party appointed surveyor and in spite of completing all the formalities petitioner did not settle the claim, hence, complaint was filed. Opposite party-petitioner filed reply and submitted that surveyor reported loss of Rs.67,720/-, but as driver of vehicle Rupinder Singh was not having valid driving licence and as complainant failed to comply necessary formalities, claim was repudiated. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the claim and directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.67,720.93 with interest @ 9% p.a. and also directed to make payment of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and Rs.500/- as cost of the petition. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

THIS petition has been filed with a delay of 44 days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that time was taken in obtaining legal opinion and preparing revision and public sector undertakings normally take time in getting approval for further proceedings, hence, delay may be condoned. Perusal of condonation application reveals that the certified copy of impugned order dated 4.4.2012 was received by petitioner on 10.5.2012 and petitioner obtained legal opinion on 23.5.2012. Later on another legal opinion was obtained on 2.6.2012 and Regional Office, Ludhiana forwarded the claim file on 11.7.2012 to Delhi Regional Office-1 for filing revision petition. When second legal opinion was obtained on 2.6.2012, why file was forwarded to Delhi Regional Office on 11.7.2012 meaning thereby after 40 days is not clear and no explanation has been given. Delhi Regional Office also marked the matter to the Counsel for filing revision on 17.7.2012, but this revision petition has been filed on 21.9.2012 meaning thereby after two months and no explanation has been given for this delay. In the absence of any explanation regarding condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that delay cannot be condoned only on the ground that public sector undertakings take time in approval for filing revision petition and in such circumstances, on the count of delay alone, revision petition is liable to be dismissed. As far as merits of the case are concerned, learned District Forum and learned State Commission have rightly held that driver of the vehicle was possessing driving licence for car/scooter and the insured vehicle Tata Safari is a light motor vehicle and thus, driver of the vehicle was possessing valid driving licence at the time of incident.

AT the time of incident, vehicle was stationary as per affidavit of petitioner and in such circumstances, validity of driving licence has no relevance when the vehicle caught fire due to short-circuit. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in affirming the order of the District Forum and petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits at admission stage with no order as to costs.