AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, J
For the reasons cited in the Affidavit, the delay of 81 days is hereby condoned.
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 28.04.2017 in FAIA No. 444 of 2017 in FASR NO. 203 of 2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderababd (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (for short "the District Forum").
The facts in brief, are that the Complainant had taken an insurance Policy bearing No. 17182197 for annual premium of ₹2,00,000/- with risk cover for 10 years and the premium was payable only for a period of 3 years. It was informed to the Complainant that the basic sum of Insurance is 12 times of premium i.e. an amount of ₹24,00,000/- with a rider clause of double benefit i.e. an amount of ₹48,00,000/- in case of unnatural death and severe illness. The Complainant stated that he had addressed letters on 28.05.2011 and 06.08.2013 to the Insurance Company confirming the terms which have been informed to him. Thereafter, a legal notice was served demanding an amount of ₹8,39,323/- with interest from 15.06.2013 till the date of payment as per the assurance given to him. The Complainant submits that there was no response to his requests and hence he filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:
"a) To direct the opposite parties to pay the balance claim amount of Rs.8,98,983 with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of it fell due that is from 14.06.2013 to the date of realization.
b) To award the future interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint to the date of final payment is made to the complainant by the opposite party besides the stipulated interest mentioned as per their letter and policy.
c) To award the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to negligent and indifferent attitude of the opposite party towards him.
d) To award the cost of this Complaint of Rs.10,000/-
e) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Forum may be pleased deem to fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. "
The Insurance Company filed their Written Version stating that the life assured had availed a Policy 'Reliance Traditional golden Years Plan', which is a non-linked and non-profit retirement plan which generates much needed corpus for old age, for which the premium installment is ₹2,00,000/- for a policy term of ten years. The life assured submitted the proposal on 12.06.2010 and the policy was delivered to him on 16.06.2010 through speed post. The conditions of the policy are annexed to it and every policy comes with a free look period i.e. if the policy holder disagrees with any of the terms and condition the policy can be returned to the Company within 15 days of its receipts requesting for cancellation and the Insurance Company would refund the premium paid. The first complaint made by the life assured was on 12.08.2010, which was made after the stipulated period. The Complainant had paid three consecutive premium of ₹2,00,000/- each. Thereafter the Complainant was explained the incapability of making any changes in the policy terms and conditions and he was advised to surrender the policy vide letter dated 03.02.2013. It was further advised to the life assured that he can take the full surrender value in cash or may purchase the annuity with the Surrender proceeds, subject to nominal deduction. The terms and conditions of the surrender charges payable by the policy holder is as follows:
Years of Policy Surrender
Surrender Value as a percentage of the Fund Value
First 2 years
Surrender not allowed
3rd Policy year
80%
4th Year
90%
5th and subsequent policy year
100%
Thereafter the Life assured was requested to furnish necessary documents as mentioned below in order to process the surrender request.
Original Policy Documents
Surrender Payout form
Cancelled cheque copy
Identify proof.
The life assured did not comply with the aforenoted directions and therefore is not entitled to the refund of the premium with any interest. It was further stated that the said policy is a non-linked non-profit retirement plan which needs premium to be paid every year for the entire term of 10 years and in order to get accumulated value which will be maintained in a separate account called 'Accumulation Account' in respect of each policy holder, which gets credited with accumulation rate at the end of every calendar month. The accumulation rate shall be applied proportionately to any increase in the Account Values. After the Vesting Date, the Annuity Payments begins i.e. after that the date, the pension will be started for the policy holder. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties had not assured for any guaranteed sum assured as complained by the policy holder. Hence it was stated that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf and sought dismissal of the Complaint against them.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund an amount of ₹6,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.06.2013 till the date of realization together with costs of ₹5,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission in FAIA NO. 444 of 2017 in FASR No. 203 of 2017 dismissed the Appeal in limine on the ground of delay. While dismissing so, the State Commission observed as follows:
"13) The parties seeking relief have to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse to time. Proof of 'sufficient cause' is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. The discretion conferred on this Commission is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal that would not be a ground for condoning the delay. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal of consumer disputes. It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and 'sufficient cause' should be made out with specific reasons supported by material; and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the prescribed period will not be exercised in a light and routine manner.
We may also state that the petitioner should not be denied the right accrued to him on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. What is required is that the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation without supporting material is not sufficient for condoning the delay in favour of applicant. If he does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that it does not reflect 'sufficient cause', then the application deserves no consideration. When consistently rigmarole facts pleaded without any justification or proof, the delay of 375 days cannot be condoned."
Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/ Complainant vehemently contended that the Complaint was allowed before the District Forum and on an Appeal preferred by the Complainant, the State Commission has erred in dismissing the Appeal at the admission stage on the ground of delay. Learned Counsel submitted that the free copy of the final order dated 09.11.2015 was stated to be issued on 10.12.2015 as evident from the endorsement made on this effect in the said judgement and final order. However, the said free copy was not received by the Petitioner and upon knowledge about the same, the Petitioner applied for certified copy of the same on 11.05.2016 which was made ready on 13.05.2016 and delivered to the Petitioner on 13.05.2016.
The State Commission has given a finding in para 5 and 6 of the order, which is reproduced as hereunder:
"5) In the instant appeal, the Forum below passed order on 09.11.2015 in C.c. No. 623 of 2013 and the same was dispatched to either of the parties on 21.04.2016 vide dispatch No. 346. From the perusal of operative portion of the order of forum below which are impugned under this appeal, it is evident that the time granted for compliance is 30 days.
6) Admittedly, the present application along with the appeal is filed on 21.01.2017. If really the Petitioner is interested in pursuing the matter, nothing prevented him from filing the appeal within 30 days. No plausible reasons assigned as to what made the Petitioner keep silent for such a long time. This shows the negligence and callousness on the part of the Petitioner in showing disrespect to the orders of the court."
Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 to take a liberal stand while condoning the delay; having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and Principle of Natural Justice, coupled with the fact that the Appeal was preferred by the Complainant seeking enhancement, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay, allow the present Revision Petitions and set aside the order of the State Commission, which has dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Complainant in limine. The State Commission is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as practicable on merits after issuing notice to the other side. It is clarified that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
This Revision Petition is disposed of with the aforenoted directions.