AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainant is directed against the order dated 03.12.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.213 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 13.01.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (for short "the District Forum") vide which the Application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of approximately 700 days in filing of the Complaint, was allowed and the Complaint was entertained. For arriving at the conclusion that the Complainant had failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of the said delay, the State Commission, has also taken into consideration the fact that even on merits, the Complainant does not have a prima facie case in his favour.
It is pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that consequent upon the impugned order, by a separate order dated 22.01.2016, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint (CC No.391 of 2014). Against the said order, the Complainant again preferred an Appeal to the State Commission, inter-alia on the ground that since the State Commission had held that the Complaint was barred by limitation, there was no occasion for the District Forum to pass yet another order dismissing the Complaint. This Appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.02.2016.
We have heard learned Counsel for the Complainant and the Insurance Company, viz., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.
Having glanced through the Application, filed by the Complainant along with the Complaint, seeking condonation of delay as also the supporting affidavit, wherein the Complainant had affirmed that on repudiation of his claim, preferred for indemnification of the loss suffered by him on account of theft of his tractor on 14.07.2009, by the Insurance Company on 22.10.2010, the Counsel, engaged by him to file Appeal, and had paid a sum of 20,000/- as his fee, had kept him in dark on one pretext or the other all the time and was assuring him that the needful would be done on time. Having regard to the fact that the Complainant happens to be a poor farmer, we are unable to fathom any reason as to why he will not be interested in prosecuting his case. In our view, therefore, the supporting affidavit filed by the Complainant cannot be out rightly rejected on the ground that it was an afterthought. We are convinced that the explanation furnished by the Complainant is bonafide and he cannot be made to suffer on account of the lapse on the part of his Counsel. We are also of the view that the District Forum having exercised the discretion vested in it under Proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 24 A of the Act on cogent material, the State Commission should not have interfered with the order passed by the District Forum.
resultantly, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the order passed by the District Forum dated 13.01.2015 is affirmed and consequently Complaint No.391 of 2014 is restored to the Board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the Complaint shall be adjudicated upon by the District Forum uninfluenced by any observations in the order, impugned in this Petition.
The parties/their Counsel shall appear before the District Forum on 19.12.2016 for further proceedings.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms, with no order as to costs.