Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Amit Jain

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Petitioner Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Party in the original Complaint, against the order dated 31.03.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.237 of 2015 which was an Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 29.09.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.67 of 2014.

The present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 485 days which was admitted on 07.12.2017. An Application no.19515 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay has been filed. I have heard arguments on the said Application. In the said Application, it has been stated that the said delay of 485 days is due to the reasons which are explained in para 4, 5, 6 and 7. In order to understand the reasons fully, the same are reproduced hereunder:

"4. That the free certified copy of the judgment dated 31.03.2016 along with the covering letter dated 04.04.2016 of the Advocate was sent to the Sr. Divisional Manager of the Petitioner Insurance Company on 04.04.2016.

That the papers forwarded to the regional office which was again forwarded to the head office after seeking legal opinion from the law officers of the company.

That the competent Authority again sough opinion from a panel lawyer on the feasibility of filing Revision before this Hon'ble Commission. That after seeking opinion the competent authority took a decision to proceed with the filing of Revision Petition and to depute a lawyer for filing. The case was marked by letter dated 13.07.2016, the file along with the documents was received for drafting and filing of the Revision Petition.

That the file was collected on 15.07.2016 and the drafting was done without any further delay and during the drafting of the Revision Petition there were summer vacations, due to which the drafting could not be finalized and after arriving there was some dispute in the office sharing of the Advocate due to which the original file was misplaced on 21.07.2016 and the office was shifted to Vaishali Ghaziabad from Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. That on 03.11.2017 the file was found in the Grater Kailash I in one shelf. That the Petition was again drafted and was given for signature and the same was received for filing on 17.11.2017."

It is argued that the delay was not deliberate or intentional but due to the reasons aforestated. Reliance has been placed on para (8) of the "Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation And Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 459":

"although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with applications for condonation of delay, this court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and stricter approach where the delay is inordinate." In the present case the delay was of more than 4 years which was condoned by Hon'ble High Court but the same was set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court on account of inordinate delay."

It is argued that a liberal approach should be adopted while condoning the delay.

Reliance is also placed on the case of "State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan 2008 (11) SCALE 2455" where it has been held that if there are sufficient cause and shortness of delay, the circumstances be taken into account while using the discretion.

"what counts is not the length of delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken in to account in using the discretion. On this contention, it is submitted that the delay be condoned and the Revision Petition be heard on merits.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that it is not the delay of 485 days but of 506 days in filing the present Revision Petition as per the Registry. It is submitted that the grounds given in the Application are not reasonable grounds and that the Respondent should not be harassed further who has a concurrent finding in his favour.

I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and also the material on record. The grounds given by the Petitioner in the Application, which are reproduced above, I do not find them convincing and sufficient to condone the delay of 506 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. The reproduction of the grounds given itself shows that the Petitioner Department had been acting in a very causal manner with disregard to the law of limitation pertaining to the filing of Appeals and Revision Petitions.

There is no doubt that the courts in several pronouncements has stated that the matters related to the delay in filing Revision Petitions and Appeals have to be construed in liberal manner. However, the courts have also held simultaneously in several pronouncements that where the delay is unexplained and is not convincing and no sufficient cause is shown, the courts are justified in rejecting the Appeals/Revision Petitions. In "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"It is, however, necessary to emphasize 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 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 Court in another case of "R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that court has to apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has held as under:

"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."

While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578," by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The court has held as under:

"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 Fora."

There is no dispute that the Petitioner is a Public Undertaking. It is expected from a Public Undertaking to follow and honour the law in its letter and spirit and they are under special obligations to observe the law framed by the Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the "Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)" as under:

"The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.'

There is no doubt that the courts are given power to condone the delay but the same has to be exercised in appropriate cases. This discretion given to this Forum to condone the delay cannot be exercised unmindfully but the discretion has to be based on cogent reasons and well explained reasons of delay. From the reasons given in the Application, it is apparent that there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner made any bonafide efforts to avoid such delays. The matter remained pending for unreasonable length of periods.

For these reasons, I do not find any reason to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioner. No reasonable grounds have been shown for condonation of the delay. The Application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

Since the Application for condonation of delay in filing of the Revision Petition is dismissed, the Revision Petition also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.