Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

A/178/2022

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. AMIT TRIPATHI

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) filed an appeal (FA No.178/2022) on 12.10.2022 challenging an order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Learned District Commission (Central) in CC No.168/2017 titled "Amit Tripathi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd." Along with the appeal the Appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay (IA No.1479/2022 / IA No.1405/2022 is noted at the top of the record) for having filed the appeal beyond the 30-day statutory period under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Appellant's explanation (set out in Paras.2–8 of the application) is summarized as follows: the certified copy of the impugned order was received on "20.07.1011 only" (as recorded in the opinion); a legal opinion from panel counsel was sought and received (opinion dated 25.07.2022), after which sanction from higher officials was obtained to file the appeal; the statutory pre-deposit required an FDR of Rs.1,05,000/- to be furnished with the Commission; the Appellant's bank accounts are centrally managed from Chennai and the bank would not issue an FDR in the name of a third party (only DD/cheque offered); the Registry of the Commission had informed that only an FDR would be accepted; the Appellant followed up centrally, arranged for Bank of India to prepare the FDR, and after the FDR was prepared the file was sent to panel counsel to draft and file the appeal. The Appellant submitted that these steps caused the delay in filing the appeal.

The Commission calculated that the appeal was filed on 12.10.2022 which resulted in a delay of 75 days from 30.06.2022, whereas the Appellant sought condonation for 53 days of delay.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Appellant has shown "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to justify condonation of delay in preferring the appeal beyond the statutory 30-day period.
Whether, in the absence of satisfactory explanation and supporting documents for the delay, the appeal filed beyond the stipulated period should be entertained or dismissed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Appellant received the certified copy of the impugned order on 20.07.1011 only (as recorded in the opinion) and thereafter sought internal legal opinion before proceeding.
The panel counsel's opinion dated 25.07.2022 advised that the case was fit for filing an appeal; following internal sanction procedures further time was required.
Statutory pre-deposit required an FDR of Rs.1,05,000/-, and the Appellant's centrally managed banking system (from Chennai) initially offered only DD or cheque but not an FDR in the name of a third party; arranging an acceptable FDR necessitated contacting a different banker (Bank of India) and obtaining necessary internal sanctions, which consumed time.
Because of the sequence of these events (receipt of order, obtaining legal opinion, arranging FDR through centrally managed banking and obtaining internal approvals), the Appellant could not file the appeal within the 30-day period and thus sought condonation of delay.

The opinion does not set out any specific, adversarial arguments advanced by the Respondent (Amit Tripathi) on the condonation application in the text provided.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746	Definition and contours of "sufficient cause" — meaning "adequate"/"enough"; party must not have acted negligently or without bona fide; the court must be satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from prosecuting the case.	The Commission relied on this definition to assess whether the Appellant's explanation (Paras.2–8) constituted "sufficient cause" for condoning delay and required a satisfactory explanation and absence of negligence/bad faith.
Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., IV (2015) CPJ 453 (NC)	Emphasis on the special short limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act and the need to guard expeditious adjudication; courts are not to be satisfied with inapt explanations for long delays (example given: 590/601 days).	The Commission invoked this authority to underscore that the statutory regime demands strict adherence to limitation periods and that protracted unexplained delays cannot be condoned in consumer matters.
Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 (dated 25.02.2022)	Where delay is not properly explained and there are no merits in the condonation application, such applications should be dismissed; courts must not give a premium to those guilty of delay and laches; limitation must be applied strictly as prescribed by statute.	The Commission relied on this authority to support the view that unexplained delay and absence of material evidence to justify the delay warrant dismissal of the condonation application.
Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 10 SCC 765	Law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when the statute prescribes it; the court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.	Referred to in support of the proposition cited in Lingeswaran that statutory limitation periods must be enforced even if they cause hardship; used to justify strict approach to condonation applications.
Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1506	Rejection of "impersonal machinery" or bureaucratic delay as acceptable explanation in the modern context; government/organizations are obliged to ensure diligence and cannot rely on procedural red-tape as a routine excuse for delay; condonation is an exception.	The Commission applied this principle to reject the Appellant's contention that corporate impersonal procedures and centralised approvals justified the delay, holding that such explanations are not acceptable without reasonable and acceptable proof of bona fide effort.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (as cited within Anil Kumar Sharma)	Reiterated that special periods of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act must be kept in mind and that expeditious adjudication is a legislative objective (citation referenced: IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)).	Referred (through Anil Kumar Sharma) to underline the legislative intent for speedy disposal in consumer disputes and caution against entertaining highly belated appeals/revisions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission proceeded in the following analytical steps (as reflected in the opinion):

Identified the statutory matrix: Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes a 30-day period to prefer an appeal from a District Forum order, with a discretion to entertain appeals beyond that period only upon satisfaction that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay; a pre-deposit (50% or Rs.35,000, whichever is less) is also required by proviso.
Computed the delay: the impugned order was dated 30.06.2022; the appeal was filed on 12.10.2022, amounting to a delay of 75 days. The Appellant sought condonation of 53 days.
Recalled legal standard: adopted the Supreme Court's elucidation of "sufficient cause" from Basawaraj (i.e., absence of negligence, bona fide conduct, reasonable explanation preventing prosecution of the case) and the related authorities stressing strict application of limitation in consumer matters.
Examined the Appellant's explanation (Paras.2–8): found that while events were narrated (receipt of order, obtaining opinion, need for FDR, centralized banking difficulties, arranging Bank of India, obtaining sanction), there were no cogent reasons or documentary proof supplied to establish when the legal opinion was received, when counsel was instructed, or to explain the day-to-day delay after receipt of the certified copy.
Applied precedent rejecting perfunctory reliance on "impersonal machinery" or bureaucratic delay (Office of The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media) and held that modern technology and organizational responsibility require reasonable and acceptable explanations supported by evidence; mere narration of events without particulars and documentation does not satisfy "sufficient cause".
Concluded that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating sufficient cause: the explanation was not cogent, day-to-day delay was not explained, and no supporting documents were furnished. Consequently, the discretion to condone delay could not be exercised in the Appellant's favour.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed beyond the statutory period is also dismissed. (The Commission ordered that there shall be no orders as to costs and directed that the file be consigned to the record room.)

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The Appellant's condonation application was refused and the appeal challenging the District Commission's order is dismissed as being time-barred. The Appellant therefore remains bound by the impugned order of the District Commission (subject to any other remedies the Appellant may have, not discussed in this opinion).
Costs consequence: The Commission specifically recorded that there shall be no orders as to costs.
Precedential effect: The opinion applies and reaffirms existing principles (as cited) concerning the strict approach to limitation and the standard of "sufficient cause"; the bench did not announce any new legal principle beyond applying settled law. The opinion emphasizes that unexplained or inadequately documented delays, including those premised on centralized corporate procedures, are unlikely to meet the threshold of "sufficient cause."

Additional Information from the Record

The judgment is dated 12.04.2023. The decision is signed by (Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) as President and (J.P. Agrawal) as Member. The file was ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. AMIT TRIPATHI

Page 1 of 7

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. AMIT TRIPATHI

12.04.2023

IA NO.1405/2022 IN FA NO.178/2022

The present Appeal was filed by the Appellant on 12.10.2022 challenging the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by Ld. District Commission (Central) in CC No. 168/2017 titled as Amit Tripathi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Alongwith the appeal, there is an application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

Therefore, vide this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid application for condonation of delay in the above appeal. The application has been moved on behalf of the Appellant bearing IA No.1479/2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the following ground:

1. …….

2. That the impugned order was passed by Ld. District Commission on 30.06.2022. The Appellant received the certified copy of the order on 20.07.1011 only.

3. That after receiving the order from the District Forum, the Appellant had examined the impugned order and placed it before the higher officials. A legal opinion was sought from the panel counsel regarding the filing of the appeal. The panel counsel of the Appellant vide opinion dated 25.07.2022 opined that the present case is fit for filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Commission. After receiving the sanction from the higher officials, it was decided that the

Page 2 of 7

appellant shall file an appeal before this Hon'ble Commission against the impugned order

4. That in order to appeal the Appellant had to get the FDR to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- to be deposited with this Hon'ble Commission as a condition of pre-deposit.

5. That the bank account of the Appellant are centrally managed from Chennai and the banker of the Appellant were ready to make the DD and cheque but not FDR in the name of third party.

6. That the panel lawyer enquired from the Registry of this Hon'ble Commission whereupon it was informed that the DD or cheque would not be accepted by the Hon'ble Commission and only FDR is required to be submitted alongwith the appeal.

7. That the Appellant followed up the matter with the Centrally Account Hub, Chennai and Head office of issuance of FDR. After much deliberations and efforts, the issue of preparation of FDR was sorted out and Appellant managed to arrange a new banker i.e. Bank of India for preparation of FDR. Thereafter the sanction was taken from the higher officials for preparation of the FDR. All this process took time and after the sanction the said letter was sent to the Bank for preparation of the FDR. After the said FDR was prepared by the Bank, the file was sent to the panel counsel of the Appellant to draft the appeal and file the same.

8. That it is because of these reasons that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period of time.

To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:

"Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.

Page 3 of 7

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less." Perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of such order, as the complaint filed by the Appellant was filed under the old Consumer Protection Act. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.06.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 12.10.2022 with a delay of 75 days, though the Appellant has sought condonation of 53 days delay in filing the appeal.

In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported at AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-

"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or

"enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word

Page 4 of 7

"sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context,

"sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any

"sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.

" We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported at

IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under: -

"12. ………we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that 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

Page 5 of 7

get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained

." We further deem it appropriate to refer to judgment dated 25.02.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 titled as Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -

"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the

law of limitation may

harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.

From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a

Page 6 of 7

want of bona fide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.

On perusal of record before us, Para No.2 to Para No.8 of the application for condonation of delay is the explanation given by the Appellant for the delay caused in filing this appeal. However, there are no cogent reasons given by the Appellant to explain as to why it did not take immediate steps even after receiving the certified copy of the order on 20.07.2022. Further, no document was furnished by the Appellant to prove the contention that when the legal opinion was received, when it instructed the counsel. The Appellant failed to explain the day-to-day delay caused after the receipt of the impugned judgment, legal opinion and the FDR. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is a corporate organization and due to the impersonal machinery, the delay occurred in taking various approvals for filing the present appeal. To this argument of the Appellant, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case of Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors.reportedat AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as under:

12. …….The claim on account of impersonal machinery andinherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities

Page 7 of 7

that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. 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. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." Relying on the above settled law and considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Appellant for the delay except mentioning of events. According to us, the Appellant has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such delay. Accordingly, the application filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay is without any merit and needs to be dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the stipulated period shall also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.

File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal)

President

(J.P. Agrawal)

Member

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. AMIT TRIPATHI

Case Summary: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. AMIT TRIPATHI

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Additional Information from the Record

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. AMIT TRIPATHI

Comments