Naveen Sharma vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Requirement of removal of Office objections is dispensed with.

These Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Actâ€), by the Complainant, are directed

against two different orders, both dated 22.02.2016, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for

short “the State Commissionâ€) in First Appeals No. 273 and 272 of 2014. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders,

dated 26.05.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi (for short “the District Forumâ€) in Complaint Cases No. 24

and 23 of 2013, and has, thus, dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein. By the said orders, while holding that the loss, for which

indemnification was sought by the Complainant, having occurred during the “maintenance periodâ€, was not covered under the policies in question,

the District Forum had dismissed the Complaints.

Since both the Complaints, between the same parties, except for some variation in the amounts indicated therein, involve a common issue and

similar facts and the Forums below have also disposed of the Complaints/Appeals on similar lines, though by separate orders, these Revision Petitions

are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 2229 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and

the facts enumerated hereinafter are also taken from the same, which would govern both the cases.

The Complainant, a Civil Contractor, had been awarded a work, relating to construction/repair of the roads in Sarkaghat Tehsil of Mandi District, by

the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. The contract was worth 95,00,176/-. In respect of the said work, the Complainant had obtained an

insurance policy, viz. Contractors All Risk Insurance Policy, from the Respondent/Insurance Company. The said policy was valid between the period

25.08.2010 and 24.08.2011. According to the Complainant, during the validity of the said policy, on 24.07.2011, he suffered loss, quantified at

10,36,201/- on account of heavy rains, which damaged the roads. On intimation thereof to the Insurance Company, a Surveyor was deputed by it, who

assessed the loss at 1,95,392/-. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim under the policy in question on the ground that the risk was not

covered for the “maintenance periodâ€. In the said background, afore-noted Complaint(s) came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for

the reliefs mentioned therein.

Having suffered the aforesaid adverse orders by the District Forum and the State Commission, the Complainant is before us in the present Revision

Petitions.

It is pointed out by the Office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is inordinate delay, ranging between 412 â€

537 days, in filing the same. Identical Applications, seeking condonation of the delay, have been filed along with the Revision Petitions. In the said

Applications, the Petitioner/Complainant has furnished the following explanation:

“That on 22.02.2016 impugned judgment and order was pronounced by the Hon’ble State Commission and the present Petitioner could not

obtained the certified copy sent by the registered post and applied the same on 30/11/2016 and on that day it was delivered to the Petitioner.

That the petitioner who is a contractor suffered grate financial loss due to said natural calamity and could not afford to come to Delhi and engage a

counsel to file his case. Only after arranging the sufficient fund, the Petitioner could consult the Counsel only on 01/07/2017 in Delhi and thereafter

with the sufficient consultation and preparation, the matter is being filed today in this Hon’ble Forum. ….â€​

Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to make out a

sufficient cause for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay.

It is trite law that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides 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 scrupulously applied, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty. In the instant case, a perusal of certified copies of the

impugned orders, placed on record by the Petitioner himself, shows that the same are copies issued on his request, subsequent to the issue of “free

certified copiesâ€​, which had been promptly issued by the State Commission to him on 02.03.2016.

In view of the fact that the address of the Petitioner as mentioned in his Appeals before the State Commission and in the present Revision Petitions, is

the same, and in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the plea that he had not received the free certified copies, we fail to

comprehend why the free certified copies sent by the State Commission by registered post on 02.03.2016 would not have reached the addressee.

Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the state of affairs was in fact so and the Petitioner had not received the free certified copies of

the impugned orders, we find that the Petitioner was duly represented by his Counsel before the State Commission and the impugned oral orders had

been passed in his presence. On passing of the said orders, the Counsel must have informed the Petitioner about the fate of his Appeals.

In such a situation, it cannot be accepted that the Petitioner was not aware of the impugned orders. Further, it also belies our conviction that a

Contractor, who was executing the works/contracts, valued at 95,00,000/- and 1,05,00,000/- respectively in these cases, assigned by the government

agencies, was not able to afford/pursue his case. Further, the Applications are also conspicuously silent how the Petitioner learnt about the impugned

orders on 01.07.2017, necessitating him to apply for issue of the certified copy thereof and thereafter file the present Revision Petitions, with the

afore-stated delay. Non-disclosure of the source of the said information, and regard being had to the fact that the plea of non-receipt of certified

copies of the impugned orders, sent by the State Commission by registered post, is also not supported with any documentary evidence, leads to the

irresistible conclusion that the explanation furnished is nothing but an after-thought.

In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the Petitioner, who being a Complainant was required to be extra vigilant while pursuing

his cause, more so, when he had been non-suited by both the Forums below, has failed to make out a “sufficient cause†for condonation of afore-

stated inordinate in filing the Revision Petitions.

For the afore-going reasons, we are not inclined to condone the afore-stated period of inordinate delay in filing the Revision Petitions and would

dismiss the Revision Petitions on the short ground of limitation. Ordered accordingly.