UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs Mohan General Store

THIS Revision Petition, under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd., the Opposite Party, against order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 49/2011. 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 13.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Barabanki (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 130 of 2004. The District Forum, while holding that the repudiation of the insurance claim lodged by the Complainant under the Shopkeepers Policy in question was not justified and consequently in doing so there was deficiency in service on its part, had allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant ?8,00,000/ - with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the Complaint till realization, besides ?2000/ - as compensation for physical and mental agony and ?2000/ - as litigation expenses.

BEING aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore -noted Appeal before the State Commission, however, with a delay of 90 days. Application praying for condonation of the said delay had been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraph 2 to 6 of the said application, as culled out from the impugned order, the explanation furnished for the delay was as under: "2. That the impugned judgment and order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 13.10.10 the copy of which was received to the counsel for the appellant on 18.10.10 who sent the same to the Branch Office Barabanki of the appellant from where the certified copy of judgment and order was sent to the Divisional Office -II at Lucknow on 25.11.10.

That the Divisional Office -II, Lucknow after study of said judgment and order it is found that the case is liable to be challenged before the S.C.D.R.C., U.P., Lucknow and thereafter, prepared an office note for the same and send the complete file for appeal to L.R.O., Lucknow of the appellant where it was received on 26.11.2010.

That in the L.R.O. of the appellant, after fulfilling the formalities, the file was handed over to the advocate for filing an appeal on 21.12.10 and thereafter, after preparing the appeal, it is being filed before this commission as soon as possible.

That the delay in filing the appeal, is not deliberate but due to reason as aforesaid and some delay in transportation and holidays.

That in view of the above, it will be in the interest of justice that delay in filing appeal may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merits."

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 rigours. An unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty and, therefore, limitation prevents deprivation of what one may have acquired. In P. 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 a copy of the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the District Forum, allowing the Complaint, on 18.10.2010, yet it took over one month in sending the same to its Divisional Office at Lucknow. Though the Petitioner''s Divisional Office at Lucknow promptly acted in the matter and furnished the necessary papers to their L.R.O. at Lucknow on 26.11.2010, yet the said L.R.O. again took almost one month in assigning the matter to their Advocate for filing Appeal before the State Commission. The said Advocate also took his merry time in preparing the Appeal and ultimately filed it on 10.01.2011. However, by this time the Appeal was barred by limitation, as there was delay of 60 days in filing the same, beyond the statutory period of 30 days provided under Section 15 of the Act for filing the same. The said delay was sought to be explained on the specious plea that it happened because of procedural reasons, involving different offices of the Petitioner.

THE question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under : "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 bona fides, 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.

In our view, it is 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 bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

THE Petitioner, being a government instrumentality, ought to have acted in the matter prudently and diligently, which was not to be. If the Insurance Company had felt that the stakes involved in the litigation were high, instead of processing the file in a routine casual way, it would have been on its toes to ensure that the order passed against it by the District Forum is challenged within the prescribed period of limitation. From the above facts, it is clear that the Petitioner was negligent in prosecuting its cause and this Revision Petition is yet another attempt to prolong the litigation and to deprive the Complainant of his right which he had acquired on making of order by the District Forum in his Complaint, filed as far back as in the year 2004. This is nothing but a sheer harassment to the Complainant at the hands of a Government agency, 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 60 days 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 Revisionary Jurisdiction.

CONSEQUENTLY , the Revision Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.