UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs M/S. NILAMBUR RUBBER CO. LTD

This revision is directed against the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, "the State Commission") dated 25.10.2011 in first appeal No.406/2010 whereby the State Commission concurred with the factual finding of the District forum but modified the operative portion of the order by directing that interest on the compensation awarded shall be payable w.e.f. 29 December, 2006. th

The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days as envisaged under regulation 41 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 with a delay of 210 days as per the petitioner (224 as per the computation done by the registry). The petitioner has, therefore, moved an application for condonation of delay in filing of the revision petitioner. The explanation given for the delay in filing of revision petition is detailed in paragraphs 1, 3 & 4 of the application.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay caused in filing of the revision petition is unintentional. It has occurred mainly because of the fact that the counsel who was dealing with the appeal in the State Commission, unfortunately fell seriously ill and was hospitalised and due to this reason he could not apply for the certified copy in time. It is further contended that the counsel after recovery applied for the certified copy. Thereafter, some delay was caused in getting the certified copy and due to bureaucratic procedure for obtaining and filing of the revision petition which involved six officers of the insurance company.

Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner it would be useful to have a look on the law relating to condonation of delay.

In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 , it has been observed as under: - "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".

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed: - "W e 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.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down that: - "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".

Recently, 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 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 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.

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.

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.

In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs ."

Now, we proceed to examine the explanation given by the petitioner for delay in filing of revision petition. The first contention of the petitioner is that delay has been caused because learned counsel for the petitioner who was representing the petitioner in the State Commission was seriously ill and hospitalized when he received the copy of the impugned order. Therefore, he could not apply for certified copy of the impugned order in time, which resulted in delay. We do not find merit in this contention for the reason that admittedly free certified copy of the impugned order was received by the counsel for the petitioner on 2 December, 2011. Therefore, there was nd no occasion for applying a second certified copy to file the revision petition. Otherwise also, if the certified copy of the impugned order was necessary for filing the revision petition, then there is no explanation as to why certified true copy of the order has not been filed alongwith the revision petition. It may be noted that although the ill-health of the counsel is taken as a ground for condonation of delay, medical certificate to support the contention was not filed alongwith the application for condonation of delay. However, pursuant to the direction medical certificate has been filed today, which is taken on record. On perusal we find that medical certificate has been issued by one Dr. Vijayadharan Pillai, MBBS, DPH, purported to have a registration No.4269 of TC Medical Council. This certificate does not bear the stamp of the Doctor and certifies that Shri R. Jagadish Kumar, advocate was under the treatment of the said doctor on 1 December, 2011 st for acute hepatitis and he was advised one month''s rest. The medical certificate is not reliable for the reason that it is not supported by any prescription issued by the concerned doctor. Otherwise also, in the application it is alleged that the concerned advocate was seriously ill and hospitalized but the certificate has not been issued by any hospital and does not even mention that the issuing doctor was working with some hospital. So far as explanation regarding administrative delay is concerned, it is highly vague. The application does not mention the specific date on which process for the purpose of filing revision petition commenced and does not spell out the date showing the movement of file from one table to another. Therefore, the explanation is needs to be rejected.

It is pertinent to note that the consumer complaint was filed in the District Forum on 5 th July, 2007 and the stake involved in the revision petition is Rs.3,98,037.50P with 9% interest thereon. Looking into the quantum involved and the fact that both the foras below have returned concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner insurance company, we do not find it a fit case to interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction particularly when there is no jurisdictional error shown.

In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay. Application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.