Dharambir vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 354/2015 dated 25.03.2016.

According to the Petitioner/Complainant, he was a registered owner of truck bearing registration No. HR-38/M-3536, which was insured with the Respondent/Opposite Party and policy was valid from 31.03.2012 to 30.03.2013 for Rs.3,85,000/-. The vehicle met with an accident and got totally damaged. The intimation regarding to the said incident was sent immediately to the insurer. The Surveyor was appointed and he directed the Petitioner to get the vehicle repaired. Thus, he spent Rs.1,98,477/- on repairs. The claim was submitted but Respondent failed to pay any amount. On 10.09.2013, the Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent to pay the amount at 18% per annum but no reply was received from the Respondent's side. Thus, the Complaint was filed.

The Respondent contested the Complaint by filing Written Statement in which he has raised various preliminary objections such as the Complaint was not maintainable, has no jurisdiction, based on false and frivolous grounds, having false and fabricated bills of repairs. The Respondent submitted that the Engine number and Chassis number in the Registration Certificate, Insurance cover note and fitness certificate were different. Thus, the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint with heavy costs.

District Forum, vide order 19.01.2015,allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondent to pay the amount paid by the Petitioner as per bills i.e. Rs.1,98,477/- less Rs.7,000/- as it was a quotation not the bill i.e. Rs.1,91,477 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the Complaint and to further pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation as well as Rs. 2100/- for litigation expenses within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. It was further made clear that if the Respondent fails to comply with this order within 45 days, then he would be further burdened with Rs.10,000/-, apart from the above awarded amount.

Being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission.

The State Commission in its order dated 25.3.2016 observed that "It was the duty of the complainant to prove that bills produced by him were genuine. When report Ex.R-1 came on the file, wherein it was mentioned that bill Ex.C-2 was fake, it was the duty of the complainant to disprove the same. He should have produced owner of that shop to prove this fact. It was also mentioned by concerned person that bill Ex.C-2/Ex.R-4 was not issued by them. As per report Ex.C-7/R-5 it was only quotation. It was also mentioned by owner of concerned firm of Ex.R-5 that it was only a quotation, not a bill and was not bearing his signature. As per report Ex.R-1 the firm who issued bill Ex.C-5/Ex.R-6 was not existing at the concerned place and the Phone number mentioned thereupon was traceable at Jind. Likewise, the firm who issued bills Ex.C-6/Ex.R-8 and C-7/Ex.R-7 were also not available at the given address. In these circumstances it was the duty of the complainant to prove that said firms were existing at the given address and the bills were genuine. Instead of proving this fact he is alleging that OP has failed to prove this fact. He is trying to put cart before the horse. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects. So, amount mentioned in Ex.C-2, Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 is also to be deducted from the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum. However, there is no dispute that production of photocopies is not sufficient ground to reject the claim, but, when their genuineness is doubted complainant should have produced original."

The State Commission vide order dated 25.03.2016, held that in the said matter the manner of accident was not mentioned by the Petitioner. To clear any doubt, the Petitioner should have not only produced a copy of the FIR but also the original documents. In these circumstances, the amounts mentioned in Ex.C-2 i.e. Rs.40,000/-, Ex.C-5 i.e. Rs.91,690/-, Ex.C-6 i.e. Rs.30,000/-, Ex.C-8 i.e. Rs.2100/- amounting to Rs. 1,63,790/- was to be deducted from the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum which comes to Rs.1,91,477 - Rs.1,63,790 = Rs.27,687/-. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum was modified accordingly and with the said modification the Appeal stood disposed off. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He reiterated his respective contentions as stated above. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.

There is a delay of 659 days by the Petitioner in filing the said Revision Petition. The Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 12306 of 2018 for condoning the delay of 659 days by stating that he belongs to a remote area, it took some time in collecting copies from the Ld. State Commission at Panchkula and subsequently engaging an advocate to file the Revision Petition. It was further stated that Petitioner met with an accident and did not have funds to engage a lawyer in Delhi to prosecute the case. It was also mentioned in the delay application that Petitioner did not receive correct advice that partly allowed claim could also be made a subject matter of revision before this Hon'ble Commission.

It is observed that on 06.12.2018, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and on 11.1.2009 only a proxy Counsel appeared. Even on 06.03.2019, only Proxy Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner was present. It is also observed that even defects in the Revision Petition have not been cured. From the above, it is seen that there is gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides on the part of the Petitioners in pursuing this matter and no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay of 659 days which is nearly two years. The objective of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes gets defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated Petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority" [2012(2) CPC (SC)] observed as under:-

"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 the 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."

In "R. B. Ramalingam Vs. R. B Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108", the Apex Court has 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"

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

"It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the 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."

The District Forum allowed the Complaint and the Respondents were directed to pay the amount paid by the Petitioner as per bills. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum as the Petitioner could not prove that the Bills presented were genuine and the firms that issued them existed at the given address. The manner of accident had also not been mentioned by the Petitioner. Amounts pertaining to these bills were rightly deducted from the compensation awarded by the District Forum.

The delay of 659 days in filing the present Revision Petition is inordinate and has not been sufficiently explained by the Petitioner. Further, the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned, just and fair order.

In view of the above, the Revision Petition is dismissed both on grounds of delay and merit and the order passed by the State Commission is confirmed. No order as to costs.