Revision Petition No.3917 of 2017,IA No.20483 of 2017

16th January, 2018.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. SUNIL KUMAR

Cases Cited:
Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 [Para 13]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors., AIR 1994 P&H 45 [Para 14]
R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 [Para 15]
Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) [Para 16,17]
Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, 2012 ALL SCR 2591=IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1 [Para 17]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the impugned order dated 09.02.2017, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.1251 of 2013.

2. Brief facts of the case as per Petitioner/Complainant are that he got insured his vehicle, i.e. JCB bearing Registration No. HR-38-N-5379 with the Respondent/Opposite Party and on the night of 15.05.2011, the same was stolen, for which he duly informed the Insurance Company. The Petitioner stated that the Insurance Company repudiated his claim on the ground of delay in lodging the First Information Report with the Police and also there was a delay of 99 days in informing the Insurance Company with regard to theft of the insured vehicle. Hence, the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers:-

"(i) That the respondent directed to pay the insured amount of Rupees 12,92,000/- along with interest as earliest to pay the insurance claim with the Insurance No.2602702343000071 for the JCV vehicle No. HR-38N-5379.

(ii) That the respondent also directed to pay the Rupees 100000/- for mental and physical agony due to act and omission of the respondent and Rupees 50,000/- for the litigation cost and in total Rs.1,50,000/-

(iii) That please any other order deem fit in the favour of the Complainant."

3. The Respondent/Opposite Party filed their written statement admitting therein that the above said vehicle was insured with the Company subject to the terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance company. It was stated that there was a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR after the theft of the vehicle and that the insurance company received the information of the theft after 99 days. The insurance company further stated that the JCB was a commercial vehicle and the owner did not have the requisite fitness certificate to run the vehicle, which was a breach of the conditions of the policy. The Petitioner did not hand over the second key to the insurance company inspite of demand. It was further stated that the machine was left unattended and as such the Petitioner failed to take reasonable care of the insured machine and the claim was rightly repudiated. Hence, the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, Rajasthan (for short, 'District Forum') vide its order dated 13.08.2013, while allowing the Complaint gave the following order;

"It has been ordered that the complainant will submit letter of subrogation, indemnity bond, FIR and true copy of FRC and all the documents required by the Insurance Company and completing all formalities within 30 days and thereafter, the Respondent Insurance Company by deducting Rs.5,000/- as Access Clause from the total sum insured of the vehicle Rs.12,92,000/- leaving the balance amount of Rs.12,87,000/- and further deducting a sum of Rs.3,21,750/- being 25% as non-standard claim, pay the balance amount 75% amount of Rs.9,65,250/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% P.A. from 11.10.2012 and Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial losses and litigation charges, thus totalling Rs.9,70,250/- to the Complainant. If the opposite party fails to pay all these amount, the Complainant is entitled to get the interest 18% P.A. on the amount of Rs.9,70,250/- from the date of decision till its realization from the Respondent."

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondent filed First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum, observed as under;

"We have gone through the report filed by the investigator of the Insurance Company, the respondent vehicle was on Financed, respondent had failed to repay the loan. With this, we also thought that the JCV vehicle can neither run fast nor can carry away on easily or can sell it. If the vehicle was stolen at the night and got to know about it early in the morning and police were informed or the respondent himself could try to find it, then certainly it could have found it.

On the basis of these facts the order of the Ld. District Forum is not liable to sustain, appeal is liable to be admitted. Therefore, the order of Ld. District Forum is set aside and appeal is admitted."

6. Hence, this Revision Petition.

7. The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 218 days as per the office report and 216 days as per the Petitioner.

8. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay read as under;

"2. That the impugned order was passed on 09.02.2017 by the Hon'ble State Commission Rajasthan Jaipur. On 13.02.2017, the counsel for revision/appellant applied for certified copy and on 15.02.2017 received the above noted impugned order dated 09.02.2017 from the Registry.

3. That the revisionist/appellant is an uneducated person, belong to a rural village in Rajasthan and he was not aware of the further process of the case. The revisionist/appellant suffered depression once he heard about the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission Rajasthan Jaipur in his case because he was very hopeful about his case. It is mentioned here that the appellant had his family livelihood totally dependent upon the income of the above noted JCV vehicle. Revisionist /appellant purchased the said JCV vehicle No.HR-38N-5379 from the loan amounts which was taken on very high interest rate from the local financer and after theft of the above said JCV vehicle, he was unable to return the loan amounts and the respondent insurance company deliberately rejected his insurance claim.

4. That in the month of August 2017 once he recovered from the depression, the Revision/Appellant approached the present counsel at New Delhi.

5. That Appellant was collecting the relevant documents/certified copy and sending it to the counsel office at New Delhi and on 03.11.2017 the revisions got certified copy of the appeal from the registry of the Hon'ble State Commission Rajasthan Jaipur and same was sending to the counsel at New Delhi.

6. That after receiving all the relevant documents /certified copies the present counsel prepared the revision and typed and translated it in English and immediately thereafter it is being filed.

7. That the delay of about of 216 days is due to the above mentioned reasons and there is nothing which is deliberate or intentional."

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He contended that the delay was not deliberate or intentional but only due to the fact that the Petitioner suffered from depression once he heard about the impugned order dated 09.02.2017 and he only recovered from depression in August, 2017. He then approached the present counsel at New Delhi. The counsel for the Petitioner further contended that thereafter, the Petitioner took some time to collect relevant documents and to send them to the counsel at New Delhi after getting them typed and translated into English.

10. We are not convinced with the reasons given by the Petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, the Petitioner received the certified copy of the impugned order on 15.02.2017. Thereafter, he has made a vague plea that he suffered from depression on hearing of the order dated 09.02.2017. This plea of the Petitioner has not been supported by any medical certificate of any doctor to support his contention that he was suffering from depression. Hence, there is no cogent explanation for the period from 15.02.2017 to August, 2017, when supposedly the Petitioner recovered from the depression.

11. The Petitioner has failed to give any date regarding when he got in touch with his counsel at New Delhi. Moreover, the Petitioner has failed to give any reason for the delay for the period from August, 2011 upto 20 th December, 2017, when he has filed this Revision Petition.

12. It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

13. In Ram Lal and Ors. 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 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."

14. Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that ;

"There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence."

15. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed;

"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."

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. 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 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."

17. Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1 : [2012 ALL SCR 2591], wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed ;

"4. This Court in Anshul 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 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is 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 leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.

6. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay."

18. The observations made by various Courts in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above, are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to the Petitioner. No sufficient ground has been shown for condoning the inordinate delay of 218 days in filing the present Revision Petition.

19. Under these circumstances, present Revision Petition stands dismissed being barred by limitation in limini.

20. No order as to cost.

Revision dismissed.