Page 1 of 8
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. IRVINE
TECHNOLOGIES INC.
20.04.2023
IA NO.570/2023 IN FA NO.109/2023 The present Appeal was filed by the Appellant on 14.03.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 passed by Ld. District Commission (South -X) in CC No. 660/2019 titled as M/s. Irvine Technologies Inc. v. Reliance General 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.570/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the following ground:
1. …….
2. That it is due to some ineludible circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant herein that a delay of 190 days has been caused in the filing of this present appeal. That the said delay is totally bonafide and there is no prejudice caused to any party due to the same.
3. It is most humbly submitted that the present appeal is being filed against the order of the District Commission-X, Udyog Sadan, dated 05.08.2022 in case No.660/2009, which was argued by the parties son 05.08.2022.
Page 2 of 8
4. That the matter was reserved for orders on 05.08.2022, however, the impugned order was not uploaded for next 01 months and in addition to that no free copy which is a statutory requirement under the Consumer Protection Act was supplied to the applicant because of which the applicant had no idea about the impugned order.
5. It is germane to mention here that only on 18.12.2022 when an audit took place in the office of the applicant relating to the pending cases before the Hon'ble Consumer Commission, the applicant got to know about the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 underpinning which a certified copy was promptly applied by the applicant.
6. It is also germane to mention here that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the applicant on 23.12.2022, however, the incumbent incharge who used to look after the consumer court matters went on maternity leave because of which no prompt action could be taken by the applicant.
7. That in the month of February, some other employee of the applicant steps in the shoes of the old incumbent and equipped Mr. Anuj Chauhan who is the impaneled counsel of the applicant with the brief and documents of the present case on 27.02.2023.
8. That thereafter the counsel for the Appellant completed the draft of the appeal and sent the draft to the incumbent authority of the Appellant insurance company for vetting and signing the same. However, it is pertinent to reiterate herein that since the incumbent incharge of the present matter has left on maternity leave the new incumbent incharge read and understood the draft verbatim and vet the draft after approval from his senior. The instant appeal was then signed by the authorized representative and sent to the counsel.
9. That the whole process of availing the certified copy, drafting, vetting and signing by the new authorized representative took a little time due to the maternity leave of the concerned authority of the insurance company and caused a delay of 190 days in filing the instant appeal.
Page 3 of 8
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.
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 05.12.2022 and the present appeal was filed on 14.03.2023 with a delay of 191 days.
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
Page 4 of 8
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
"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
Page 5 of 8
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 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
Page 6 of 8
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 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 2 to Para 9 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 after passing of the impugned order, as it was well aware of the impugned order. Further, no document was furnished by the Appellant to prove the contention that when it applied for certified copy of the impugned order, when the draft was sent to Appellant for vetting and signing and when it was received back after approval.
In our considered opinion, the Appellant failed to explain the day- to-day delay and had merely mentioned the event without specifying the dates. 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.
Page 7 of 8
Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors. reported at AIR 2012 SC 1506, wherein the apex court has held as under:
"12. …….The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited 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 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 and the reasons mentioned in the application are their internal arrangement. 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.
Page 8 of 8
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
(Pinki)
Member (Judicial)
(J.P. Agrawal)
Member