Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2012.

4. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 was present and was also heard. Notice was not served to the respondent No.1/complainant and the same was dispensed with in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar matter where the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2016 in SLP no.7732 of 2016 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi

and another, has already observed that it is not necessary to serve the complainant and the insurance company to deposit the amount with the District Forum.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 appeared without any notice having been issued. However, he was also heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent no.2 had wrongly insured husband of respondent no.1/complainant and the complaint was barred by limitation and therefore, claim was not liable to be paid. Both the fora below have passed erroneous orders without looking at the objections fled by the petitioner insurance company.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that there has been a delay of 995 days in filing the present revision petition as the company received the impugned order only with the notice of execution issued by the District Forum. The notice of District Forum was received in November 2015 and the revision petition has been filed in February 2016. Thus, in fact, there is no delay if counted from the receipt of the order along with notice of execution. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner company has a very strong case on merit and therefore, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.

8. On the other hand, it was stated by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that in a matter with similar facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2016 in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another has ordered the total insurance amount to be deposited by the insurance company before the District Forum and the same would be released to the complainant by the District Forum without asking for any security. Therefore nothing remains pending in this revision petition as the same may be disposed of by ordering the insurance company to deposit the insurance amount before the District Forum and the same should be released in favour of the complainant/respondent no.1 by the District Forum.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that this bench in RP No.2608 of 2016 decided on 10.2.2018, though dismissed the revision petition but left open the dispute between the insurance company and GTFS subject to order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 7732, 7889-7955 of 2016. He stated that in RP No.1752 of 2016 and RP No. 122 of 2016 decided on 13.4.2017, this Commission only dismissed the revision petitions without observing anything on the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The learned counsel argued that this bench of the Commission has to pass order similar to that passed by the coordinate bench and to support his contentions, he referred to the following cases:

1. A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 9988) 2 SC C 602 at Paragraph 183

2

2. Venkateswara Rice Mill Vs. State of A.P. (1971) 2 SCC 650 at paragraph 9

3. State of Punjab Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26 at paragraph 339

10. It was contended that if the revision petition is decided on the condition that the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 should be governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another, SLP No.7732 of 2016, then it will deprive the respondent no.2 from availing any remedy against this order.

11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also stated that this revision petition has been filed with a delay of about 1,000 days and therefore the revision petition is liable to be dismissed only on this count. No proper reason has been given in the application for condonation of delay for condoning the delay. The appeal was filed by the petitioner themselves and therefore, they should have monitored the progress of the decision of the State Commission in the appeal. It was a lapse on their part that they did not take cognizance of the order passed by the State Commission in time. The delay cannot be condoned on such types of flimsy grounds.

12. I have carefully perused the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. First, it is seen that there is a delay of 995 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay filed in this regard reads as under:-

"3. That the impugned judgment was applied on 05.03.2013 and had been delivered on 08.03.2013 by the Hon'ble State Commission. As per the appellant, the dealing counsel was not able to carry the case properly due to his illness and also had not provided the copy of the order timely to the petitioner in order to take a proper decision.

4. That the order of State Commission was pronounced on 09.11.2012 and same was provided to the office of the petitioner at Dhansar, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) only on 02.11.2015 by the Ld. District Forum, Dhanbad along with the Execution notice. Consequently, the petitioner contacted the dealing advocate, who was not aware about the Hon'ble State Commission and came to notice of the petitioner that the appeal was not defended properly. After responding the mail dt.04.11.2015, the entire case file was sent by Divisional Office, Ranchi, who also informed that as per the dealing advocate he did not carry the case properly due to his illness and also provided a copy of medical documents to support his illness. The copy of dealing advocate letter dt. 12.11.2015 with discharge summary dt. 18.12.2012 are enclosed as Annexure-P-1.

5. That already in the cases of above nature specifically in view of the memorandum

3

of understanding with the respondent no.2, the petitioner has already challenged around 67 orders of the State Commission by way of 67 Revision petitions before this Hon'ble Commission, which had been decided on 27.11.2015 vide a common order passed under Revision Petition No.3095/2010. As the petitioner's Head Office at Mumbai, has taken the decision in January, 2016 to file the Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to challenge the order dt. 27.11.2015, therefore, the present revision petition is also filed at this stage without treating the same as an exception, in view of the decision taken by the Head Office, Mumbai vide its letter dt.28.01.2016 written to Manager, Delhi. Consequently all the record of the case was also forwarded to the Delhi Office to take further steps.

6. That the insurance company has assigned the matter for filing the revision petition to the undersigned on 12.02.2016. The undersigned received the file and prepared the revision petition. Thereafter, the drafted revision petition was sent to the insurance company for approval sanction and signatures. On sanction of the draft as prepared of revision, the same was thereafter handed over to the counsel for the insurance company for taking further steps to file the revision and accordingly on the 6 sets were prepared to file before this Hon'ble Commission."

13. From the above application, it is clear that first the petitioner company got the copy of the impugned order on 08.03.2013, but they did not take any action on account of illness of the counsel. Secondly, they received the same order along with the order of the District Forum issued in the form of notice in the execution petition in November, 2015. Thus, it is clear that there was no action from March 2013 to November 2015 by the petitioner company though they had received the copy of the impugned order. Condonation of delay can only be considered if there is bona fide and reasonable diligence in pursuing the petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 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".

14. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, has observed that even if the delay may be justified and explained, it is not necessary for a court to condone the delay and this will depend on the examination of the facts of the case and the decision of the trial court. In fact, the judgment reads 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

4

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."

15. From the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that even if sufficient cause has been shown, the court may not condone the delay on the basis of the overall facts, circumstances and merit of the case.

16. In a similar matter in SLP No.7732 of 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.4.2016 had ordered that the insurance company shall deposit 50% of the amount before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same shall be released to the complainant without any security. Later on, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2016, modified its earlier order dated 29.4.2016, by ordering that the complainant need not appear in the matter as the dispute now remains basically between the insurance company and respondent no.2 and insurance company shall deposit the remaining 50% insured amount also with the District Forum and the District Forum shall release this amount to the complainant without any security. This means that Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed payment of 100% amount of insurance to the complainant without any security and his presence also has been dispensed with treating the pending matter as a dispute between the insurance company and respondent no.2.

17. Once the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been passed in a similar case, no discretion remains with this Commission to take any other view in the matter. Thus, it is seen that in the facts, circumstances and merit of the case also, no case is made out for condoning such a huge delay of 995 days which is otherwise also not condonable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) wherein the following has been held:-

"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."

18. In view of the above discussion, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the revision petition no.565 of 2016 is also dismissed.

......................

PREM NARAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

5