AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Dr. Chandrakant Parshuram Mahajan against the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short 'the State Commission') in F.A. No. A/12/240.
The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant was the owner of the truck that was duly insured with OP-1 insurance company from 3.3.2009 to 2.3.2010. On 17.8.2009 the truck was loaded and parked by the complainant's driver near Madhavrao Garage for some minor repairs as alleged. On 25.8.2009 the truck was found missing. FIR was lodged. Complainant immediately filed the claim with OP-1 towards theft of the vehicle and claimed the amount as per IDV of the vehicle Rs.3,76,650/- On 7.4.2010, the OP-1 insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that there was breach of condition no.5 of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant under which the insured was required to take proper care of the insured vehicle. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 18.2.2012 rejected the complaint observing that the complainant has been negligent in parking the truck. Complainant filed appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 3.12.2013.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is a delay of 1436 days in filing the present revision petition. Learned counsel pointed out the following reasons for delay as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay :
"3. It is submitted that, but in this particular matter the applicant most respectfully submit that, there is no any delay caused by the petitioner/applicant for filing the revision petition before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi. The reason behind is that, the petitioner/applicant had not received the information from his dealing advocate for the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharasthra, Mumbai in First Appeal No.A/12/240 order dated 3.12.2013. It is also submitted that, the petitioner/applicant is a serious patient suffering from high blood pressure and sever diabetic patient. Therefore, he has appointed his office representative Mr. Vijay Sinnarkar for getting information about the present status of First Appeal No. A/12/240 at State Commission Bombay.
From the same office representative Mr. Sinnarkar the present applicant/petitioner has got information and receive certified copies of the final dismissal order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai in same First Appeal No.A/12/240. It is also submitted that after getting the same information about the said final order, the petitioner has immediately filed the revision petition before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi. So according to petitioner no delay has been caused on the part of the petitioner for filing the revision petition before Hon'ble National Commission New Delhi. It is also submitted that, if there is delay caused for filing the revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission at New Delhi the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. On the mere technical aspect of delay the revision petition may not be dismissed for giving justice to the petitioner/applicant. The petitioner came to know about the order on 3rd November, 2017 and has applied for certified copied which he received on the same date. He has received the same copies through his office representative Mr. Vijay Sinnarkar. Thereafter filed revision petition on 3rd February, 2018 as early as possible, before the Hon'ble National Commission New Delhi. Hence, this application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner/applicant for condonation of delay caused."
On merits, learned counsel stated that both the fora below accepted the assertion of the insurance company that condition no.5 was violated by the complainant and proper care was not taken to safeguard the truck. It was argued that the complainant had taken all the necessary steps for safeguarding the truck and incident of theft had happened on 25.8.2009 and the FIR was lodged on 28.8.2009 as some time was taken in searching the vehicle and accordingly claim was also preferred before the insurance company. The claim of the complainant is genuine and a genuine claim cannot be denied on mere technical ground.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.
The present revision petition has been filed with inordinate delay of 1436 days and the petitioner/complainant has tried to explain the delay on the ground that he did not get the information from his advocate about the dismissal of his appeal before the State Commission. It is true that counsel represents the party in the proceedings, however, the case relates to the party and party is required to be vigilant and watchful for its interest in the case proceedings before any court. It seems that the complainant was not pursuing the case properly, otherwise, he should himself have contacted the counsel to know the progress of his case. Special limitation periods have been prescribed in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed the following :
"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".
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.B. RamlingamVs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, has 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."
This Commission in Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. vs. Mukeer Ahmed Shiddhiqui, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3375 has observed the following:
"18. Recently, Full Bench of this Commission in "PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Agarwal, II(2015) CPJ 666(NC)" in case of delay, has observed;
"6. It is trite that discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously, based on facts and circumstances of each case. 'Sufficient cause' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour. It is equally well settled that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigor. An unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty and, therefore, limitation prevents deprivation of what one may have acquired. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
Above authoritative judgments are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Clearly, negligence and deliberate in action are attributable to the petitioner/complainant in filing the present revision petition and accordingly, I do not find any force in the application for condonation of delay of 1436 days. Clearly, the delay has not been properly explained.
Even coming to the merits, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts so far as the negligence on the part of the petitioner/complainant in safeguarding the truck is concerned and the facts cannot be reassessed at the level of revision petition as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 ; wherein following has been observed:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
No legal point is involved in the present revision petition as both the fora below have found violation of condition no.5 of the policy which is based on the correct examination of facts in the matter. Accordingly, even on merits, I do not find any reason to infer.
Based on the above discussion, the Revision Petition No. 698 of 2018 is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.