LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs Nina Sunil Rane

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Maharashtra dated 6.3.2014, whereby the said Commission dismissed an appeal, filed by the petitioner Corporation against the order of the District Forum, which had directed the petitioner Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 1,88,590 to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 26.4.2006 and Rs. 10,000 as the cost of litigation. Since there is a delay of 54 days in filing the revision petition, the present application seeking condonation of delay has been filed along with the revision petition.

THE case of the petitioner Corporation is that they had applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 5.6.2014 and the said certified copy was made available to the Corporation on 6.6.2014. Thus, the petitioner Corporation waited for almost three months even to obtain the certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission. The prescribed period of limitation in filing a revision petition being three months, we fail to appreciate why the petitioner Corporation waited till the 89th day even to apply for the certified copy. Though under the rules a free copy is sent to the opposite party and in this case, the said free copy was sent on 4.6.2014, in our opinion, the petitioner Corporation instead of waiting for such a long period, should have applied for the certified copy of the order as soon as the said order was pronounced by the State Commission. Be that it may, since the prescribed period of limitation is to be computed from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the petitioner Corporation, we have to examine whether there is sufficient explanation for the delay of 54 days in filing the revision petition. The application to the extent the said delay is sought to be explained reads as under: "4. It is submitted that dealing Advocate namely Mr. S.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate appearing before learned SCDRC along with his letter dated 10.6.2014 delivered the copy of the final order date 6.3.2014 to Western Zonal Office Yogeakeshema, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021 of the petitioner corporation. It is worth to submit here that the same was received only on 26.7.2014. It is worth to submit here that no legal opinion along with copy of impugned order date 6.3.2014 was submitted by the lawyer of the petitioner corporation appearing before learned SCDRC.

It is submitted that thereafter legal department of the petitioner corporation processed the matter, but it took time due to heavy load of work and conference of Managers (Legal) on or about 12 August, 2014. Petitioner corporation meanwhile obtained the legal opinion of the dealing Advocate appearing before learned SCDRC on dated.....

It is submitted that Zonal Office of the petitioner corporation took the decision to recommend the matter for approval of the competent authority at Central Office at Mumbai only on 13.9.2014 for filing the revision petition and thereafter the matter was referred to the legal department Central Office on 13.9.2014 for approval. It is submitted that as per policy laid down by the petitioner corporation revision petition can be filed only after obtaining the prior approval of the central office of the petitioner corporation.

It is submitted that vide letter date 29.9.2014 legal department of the petitioner corporation at Central Office at Mumbai granted approval for filing of the revision petition which was received in the office of petitioner corporation at Delhi on 9.10.2014. Thereafter petitioner corporation vide letter date 11.10.2014 entrusted the matter to Mr. U.C. Mittal, Advocate.

It is submitted that some of the papers of the lower for a record were in vernacular language (Marathi), so Mr. U.C. Mittal, Advocate advised translation of the same in English language only. It took some time to get the translation of the said papers. Besides this Hon''ble NCDRC was closed due to Deepawali vacations up to 27.10.2014. So the present revision petition is being filed after the Deepawali vacations today on 27.10.2014."

IT would be seen from a careful perusal of the above referred averments made in the application that there is no explanation as to why there was delay in sending the certified copy of the impugned order to the office of the petitioner Corporation once it was received by the Counsel of the petitioner Corporation on 6.6.2014. The learned Counsel representing the petitioner before the State Commission being its representative ought to have dispatched the said copy to the office of the petitioner Corporation immediately after it was received by him on 6.6.2014. That, however, was not done as would be seen from the averments that the copy was received by the petitioner Corporation on 26.7.2014. The letter, whereby the certified copy of the impugned order was sent to the petitioner Corporation is available on page No. 80 of the paper book and the said letter bears the date 10.6.2014. Despite that the petitioner Corporation did not obtain any explanation from Mr. S.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate as to why he had not dispatched the aforesaid letter immediately after it was written by him on 10.6.2014. Obviously, the letter would not have taken one month and 14 days to reach the office of the petitioner Corporation in the same city of Mumbai. This is also not the case of the petitioner Corporation that it had taken any action against the aforesaid Advocate for delaying the dispatch of the certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission.

WE find that even on receipt of the certified copy of the order of the State Commission on 26.7.2014, no urgency in the matter was shown by the petitioner Corporation. It is stated in the application that the legal department of the petitioner Corporation processed the matter on 12.8.2014. There is no plausible explanation as to why there was delay of about 15 days in processing the matter. It is claimed that there was heavy load of work, but no data with respect to the said load has been given in the application. It is stated that the legal opinion from Mr. S.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate was taken but the date on which the said legal opinion was taken has not been stated in the application. It is stated in para 6 of the application that the Zonal Office of the petitioner Corporation took decision to recommend the matter for approval of the competent authority only on 13.9.2014 for filing the revision petition. Again there is no explanation why there was so much delay on the part of the Zonal Office even in recommending the matter to the competent authority, seeking approval for filing the revision petition. This, in our opinion, ought to have been done immediately after the legal opinion was received by the petitioner Corporation. It is claimed that vide letter dated 29.9.2014, legal department granted approval for filing of the revision petition. There is no explanation as to why it took as many as 16 days to obtain approval for filing the revision petition even after, legal advice had already been obtained. The legal department sent the matter to the office of the petitioner Corporation at Delhi, vide letter dated 29.9.2014 for filing the revision petition, but the said letter is stated to have received in Delhi Office only on 9.10.2014. Again there is no explanation why there was a time lack of ten days between writing the letter dated 29.9.2014 and its being received in the Delhi Office of the petitioner Corporation.

WE find that even thereafter no urgency was shown by the petitioner Corporation and revision petition was not filed immediately on receipt of the letter dated 29.9.2014. It is claimed that some papers were in Marathi language and therefore English translations of those papers were required. In our view this cannot be a good ground for condonation of delay since the petitioner could always have requested this Commission for extension of time to file English translations of the vernacular documents. Moreover, the petitioner Corporation while seeking approval for filing the revision petition should simultaneously have got the Marathi documents translated into English language, so that there was no delay in filing the revision petition once approval of the same was granted by the competent authority.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find sufficient explanation for condoning the delay of 54 days in filing the revision petition. One of the objectives behind the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy relief to a consumer aggrieved from deficiency in service on the part of the service provider and the Act enjoins upon the consumer Forum to make effort to dispose of complaint within a period of 90 days. The said purpose would only be defeated if a delay in filing the revision petition is condoned without there being sufficient explanation for he said delay. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by time.