RAM KUMAR vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

THERE is a delay of 150 days in filing the instant revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. The petitioner has explained in Paras 2 & 3 of his application for condonation of delay : - "2. That after receiving the case file from Chandigarh Counsel, the same was forwarded to the Delhi Counsel for drafting the petition in the month of May, 2012. 3. That the counsel at Delhi received the case file in the end of May, 2012. However, the said file along with other files received by the counsel, got mixed with newspaper Raddi in the house of the counsel and remained untraced till 28.09.2012, when the newspaper was disposed of ".

WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the above said submissions. The counsel was very well in the knowledge of the fact that he had received the file at the end of May, 2012. He should x have filed the revision petition immediately. He should have asked his clerk to find out the file. It is surprising to note that the file remained mixed up with the newspapers for a period of four months. Such like stories can be created at any time. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act and prescribes different Law of Limitation. The parties are required to follow the law strictly. Counsel for the petitioner did not make any efforts to reconstruct the file, knowing very well that the case was being delayed, inordinately. All these views find support from these authorities. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that 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.

IN Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., V (2010) SLT 790=III (2010) CLT 201 (SC)=(Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010, the Hon ''ble Apex court has held that the party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.

SIMILAR view was taken in a recent authority in the Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., I (2012) CLT 338 (SC)=II (2012) SLT 312, decided on 24.02.2012, by the Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011. Recently this Commission presided over by Hon ''ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, has dismissed the revision petition on the ground of delay and the delay of 104 days was not condoned, in case reference "Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal and Anr., " [Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012].

CONSEQUENTLY , the case is hopelessly barred by time.

HOWEVER , we have also gone through the merits of this case. This is clear that the petitioner had used the vehicle in violation of the. Terms and conditions of the insurance policy by carrying 40 passengers, which was more than its capacity and against the insured purpose, being a goods carrying vehicle. The learned State Commission has rightly placed reliance on the authority '' reported in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., IV (2010) CPJ 38 (SC)=VIII (2010) SLT 375=IV (2010) ACC 653 (SC)=2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP), in which it was held in Paras 22 and 24, as under: - "22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity. 24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavor of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties ".

Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition as barred by time, well as on merits. Revision Petition dismissed.