State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionReliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. & ... vs Yogendra Singh on 5 May, 2015CHHATTISGARH STATE
      CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
                PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

                                              Appeal No.FA/15/183
                                           Instituted on : 13.04.2015

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group,
Branch Office - Plot No.29, Nehru Nagar (East),
Commercial Complex,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) 490020

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
670, Rectifier House, Naigaum Cross Road,
Wadala (West),
Mumbai (Maharashtra) - 400031                      ... Appellants

      Vs.

Yogendra Singh, Age 43 years,
S/o Shri Jagdamba Singh,
R/o : Asharam Bapu Nagar, A.C.C. Jamul,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)                       ... Respondent

PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBERHON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :Shri S. Pandya, for the appellants (OPs)

                      ORAL ORDER
                     DATED : 05/05/2015
     PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.01.2015,

passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.)

(henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case       No.CC/11/50,

whereby the complaint of the respondent (complainant), has been
                                     // 2 //

allowed and the appellants (OPs) have been directed to pay

compensation jointly and severally to the respondent (complainant), as

mentioned in the impugned order.2.    The appellants (OPs) have preferred this appeal against the

impugned order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the District Forum and

have filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The

appeal is belated by 46 days.3.    We have heard arguments of Shri S. Pandya, learned counsel for

the appellants (OPs) on the application filed for condonation of delay

in filing the appeal and also perused the record of the District Forum.4.InRevision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy& anr., decided on 11.11.2013,

Hon'ble National Commission held thus :"8.    In Ram Lal & others Vs. Rewa Coalfields 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 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
                              // 3 //

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.".9.        In R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari,
2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed thus ;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.10.     Hon'ble     Supreme     Court    after   exhaustively
considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of
delay 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
                                    // 4 //

       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.5.    In Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013

AIR SCW 6510, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be
      blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is
      "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to
      answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient"embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which
      when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in
      the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined
      from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man.
      In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should
      not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona
      fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or
      it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or
      "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of
      each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court
      concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the
      Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The
      applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any
      "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a
      satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow
      the application for condonation of delay. The court has to
      examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device
      to cover an ulterior purpose. (See:Manindra Land and Building
      Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors., AIR 1964 SC
      1336; Lala Matadin v. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953;Parimal v. Veenaalias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 : (2011 AIR
      SEW 1233); and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal
      Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629 : (2012 AIR
      SCW 2412.)12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may
      harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all
      its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power
      to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result
      flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has
      no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a
      distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision
      may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but
                                    // 5 //

      the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the
      same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law
      is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It
      has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive
      factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that
      where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation,
      the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the
      "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason
      which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In
      case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on
      his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to
      have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
      justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified
      in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any
      condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only
      within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the
      condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to
      prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the
      delay without any justification, putting any condition
      whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the
      statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter
      disregard to the legislature."6.InLudhiana Improvement Trust vs. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, 2013

(4) CPR 848 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed thus :-"11.    Hon'ble Apex Court inPost Master General & Ors. Vs.
      Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.(2012) 3 SCC 563, 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.Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable
      explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 62 days.
      In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay has
      been dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been
                                     // 6 //

      dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also
      liable to be dismissed."7.InN. Manohar Reddy v. Happy Farm and Resorts, I(2014) CPJ

149 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission held thus :-"16.    This Section does not help a person who is guilty of negligence,
      laches or inaction. The test of good faith is real and bona fide belief of
      the plaintiff that he could institute the proceedings in the Court where
      he first instituted it.25.     It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for non-appearance in
      each case, is a question of fact. Delhi High Court in New Bank of
      India v. M/s Marvels (India), 93 (2001) DLT 558, has held :No doubt the words 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal
              construction so as to advance substantial justice. However,
              when it is found that the applicants were most negligent in
              defending the case and their non-action and want of bona fide
              are clearly imputable, the Court would not help such a party.
              After all 'sufficient cause' is an elastic expression for which no
              hard and fast guidelines can be given and Court has to decide on
              the facts of each case as to whether the defendant who has
              suffered ex parte decree has been able to satisfactorily show
              sufficient cause for non-appearance and         in examining this
              aspect cumulative effect of all the relevant factors is to be seen.26.     In Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields 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
                               // 7 //

      sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the
      Court by Section 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 inquiry 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.30.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (supra), has been reiterated inCicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, IV(2012) CPJ 1(SC)
wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :4.       This Court inAnshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011)
      CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay
      in a matter where the special Courts / Tribunals have been
      constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the
      person aggrieved andConsumer Protection Act, 1986is one of
      them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the
      application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court
      must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed
      under the statute(s).5.       In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay
      without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting
      the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period
      prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special petition.Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the
      delay.// 8 //6.     Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case as
              explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these
              petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay."
              [See alsoAmarjyothi House Building Co-operative
              Society Limited v. V.S. Pradeep, I(2014) CPJ 438 (NC)."8.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla

Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has 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 theConsumer Protection Act, 1986for 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."9.    Shri S. Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

(OPs) has prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the

grounds mentioned in the application filed by the appellants (OPs) for

condonation of delay and he seeks an opportunity to argue the matter

on merits.10.   The appellants (OPs) have filed application for condoantion of

delay in filing appeal, in which it is mentioned that the after receiving

the copy of the impugned order dated 27.01.2015, the counsel for the

appellants (OPs) Shri Tirohit Chauhan sent the certified copy of the
                                   // 9 //

impugned order to Raipur office of the Insurance Company on

09.02.2015. In the meantime, the delay was caused in filing the appeal

due to obtaining permission for filing appeal, hence the appeal is being

filed on 13.04.2015. In the present case the impugned order was

passed on 27.01.2015 and within 1 month from that day, the appeal was

required to be filed i.e. upto 27.02.2015 but the appeal is being filed on

13.04.2015 which is belated by 45 days. The delay in filing this appeal

is bonafide, hence the same is liable to be condoned.11.    It is now well settled that departmental and official procedural

delays do not constitutes "sufficient ground". It must be borne in mind

thatConsumer Protection Act, 1986lays down its own period of

limitation. The provisions of theLimitation Act, should be strictly

followed.    In the instant case, looking to the application filed by the

appellants (OPs) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and

affidavit of Shri Edwin Gadiya, Manager (Legal) of Reliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur (C.G.) filed in support of the said application,

it appears that the reasons assigned by the appellants (OPs) in the said

application regarding delay in filing the appeal, are not satisfactory

and delay has not been explained properly.12.    The appeal is barred by limitation by 46 days, and no proper

explanation has been given. Thus, on the facts of the case, the appeal

filed by the appellants (OPs), is barred by limitation and no satisfactory
                                      // 10 //

    explanation has been given by the appellants (OPs) in the application

    filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the said

    application, no sufficient ground has been mentioned for condoning the

    delay in filing the appeal beyond the limitation, therefore, the appeal is

    barred by time.13.   Thus, the application filed by the appellants (OPs) or

    condonation of delay in filing the appeal, is hereby rejected.Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (NarendraGupta)
      President            Member             Member        Member
       /05/2015            /05/2015          /05/2015       /05/2015