Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2012. Case: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Shivdhan Sahu. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.N. Pusty, Advocate |
| Judges | R.S. Sharma, J. (President), Heena Thakkar and D.K. Poddar, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 22, 22A, 5 |
| Citation | II (2015) CPJ 16 (Chhat.) |
| Judgement Date | January 09, 2015 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
R.S. Sharma, J. (President)
1. This is an application filed by the applicant (complainant) for modification of the order dated 23.5.2014, passed by this Commission in Appeal No. FA/13/654, which was earlier filed by the applicant (O.P.) against the order dated 8.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum" in Complaint Case No. 32/2012), whereby the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the applicant (O.P.) to pay within a period of two months from the date of order a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 which is insured declared value of the tractor-trolley. The appellant (O.P. No. 4) has preferred this application belatedly by 142 days and has also filed application for condonation of delay.
2. We have heard arguments of Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned Counsel for the applicant (O.P.) on the application filed for condonation of delay.
3. In Revision Petition No. 1616 of 2011, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shri P. Rangaswamy & Anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus:
"8. In Ram Lal & Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed-
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 discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 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 inquiry 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."
9. In R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed thus-
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.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under-
We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every Legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the Courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time."
4. In Basavraj & Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, VII (2013) SLT 97: III (2013) CLT 291 (SC): 2013 AIR SCW 6510, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"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 continue reading
Request your trial