V.Mahaboob Basha vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 13.04.2010 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission). By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent insurance company and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kadapa, (in short, the District Forum).

THE facts of the case are that the first petitioner (first complainant before the District Forum) purchased a motor vehicle which was insured with the respondent insurance company with the IDV of Rs.5,44,000/- for the period 21.06.2004 to 20.06.2005. THE vehicle met with an accident on 04.05.2005 and sustained damage. THE first petitioner informed the police as well as the insurance company and got the vehicle repaired at the cost of Rs.1,47,092/-. THE insurance company, however, repudiated the claim of the first petitioner on the ground that he had sold the vehicle to the second complainant before the date of the accident. This led the first petitioner, along with the second petitioner, to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. THE District Forum, by its order dated 28.02.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent insurance company to pay to the complainant Rs.1,36,092/- towards the insurance claim, Rs.2000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost. However, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal of the insurance company by holding that the first complainant/petitioner could not have claimed the insurance amount because he was no more the owner of the vehicle, having sold the vehicle before the date of accident. On the other hand, the second complainant could also not claim the insurance amount because the insurance policy had not been transferred in his name before the date of the accident. THE State Commission also observed that in arriving at its conclusion, the District Forum had relied upon a decision pertaining to a third party liability which was not relevant to the present case. The revision petition has been filed after a delay of 200 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The reasons cited in the application as explanation for this in ordinate delay are as under: It is submitted that the learned State Commission dispatched the free certified copy of the order dated 29.06.2010 and the counsel has received the same in the first week of July 2010. Thereafter, he intimated the same to the petitioner in 1st week of August 2010, immediately he contacted the local counsel who advised that the petitioners have to approach this Honble Commission as there are no powers under the Consumer Protection Act to the State Commission to review its order. In the second week of December 2010, the petitioners sent the papers to the counsel at Delhi who after going through the papers has sought some information and documents from the petitioner in respect of the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner no. 2. In the 2nd week of January 2011, the petitioner received a letter from the local counsel along with the vakalatama for their signatures. Meanwhile, the counsel sent the draft memo of grounds to the local counsel at Hyderabad for finalizing the same. The local counsel after finalizing the matter has sent the papers in the last week of February 2011. There after due to ill health the counsels typist did not attend the office of the counsel thereby the counsel could not locate the annexure file and not filed the revision petition.

Even a cursory perusal of these reasons would show that they do not, by a long shot, constitute sufficient cause for condonation of this delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay, and hence, the revision petition are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even on merits, there is hardly any room for interference with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission which does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity.

THE revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.