STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA `
AT HYDERABAD
FA 104 of 2014
Against
IA No. 391 of 2013 in CC 510 of 2013, District Forum I, Hyderabad
Between :
T. Raju, S/o late K.K. Nair,
Aged 72years, ‘
Occu : Senior Manager (ATC) , AAI ( Retd)
R/o Plot 136, SP. Colony, Trimugherry,
Secunderabad .. Appellant/complainant
And
01. The Airport Authority /GM
Airport Authority of India
Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500016.
02. The Chairman, Airport Authority of India
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi – 110 00103.
03. The Regional Executive Director
Southern Region, Airport Authority of India
Chennai Airport, Chennai – 27 .. Respondents/ opposite parties.
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri T. Rajasekhar Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.P. Vikram
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao .. Member
Thursday, the Twenty Second Day of June
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
*****
- This is an appeal filed Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/Petitioner/`complainant aggrieved by the orders dated 04.012014 in IA 391 of 2013 in CC NO. 510 of 2013 passed by the District Forum I, Hyderabad to condone the delay of 413 days in filing the complaint before the District Forum.
- For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
- The case of appellant/petitioner in brief is that he filed the complaint before the District Forum against the Respondents/opposite parties for reimbursement of medical bills incurred by him on account of surgery of prostrate at private hospital on 18.02.2009 after giving due notice to the respondents and it was rejected on the ground that Dr. Ramayya’s Hospital is not panel hospital and sent list of panel hospitals only on 03.01.2011 despite requests since 2006. He was sent a letter in Hindi rejecting his claim in Hindi which he did not know. He came to know about the rejection when he approached one of his friends knowing Hindi and then only he came to know about the contents of the letter received by him. Thereafter he approached his Department and requested for reimbursement of medical expenses which was refused by them. Hence, he got issued legal notice through an advocate, who, demanded huge amount for filing the complaint. Hence he approached another advocate and got filed the present complaint. As such, there occurred the delay of 413 days in filing the complaint.
- The respondents/opposite parties contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay.
- The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the petition.
- Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal on the ground that the District Forum ought to have seen that his application before the NHRC for some time and thereafter continuously making representations and asking to furnish list of empanelled hospitals under REMB at Hyderabad and the rejecting of his reimbursement, but no action has been taken by the respondents/Ops. There was no reply for his legal notice and hence the cause of action has arisen from the date of legal notice. He received rejected claim petition on 15.10.2010, hence the complaint has to be filed on or before 14.10.2012 but the complaint was filed on 18.07.2012, therefore, the delay comes to 215 days and not 413 days as stated.
- Counsel for the appellant/petitioner filed written arguments reiterating their respective contents as stated in their pleadings and evidence. Heard the counsel for the respondents
- The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
10. The causes shown for occurrence of delay are that his medical reimbursement bill was rejected on the ground that Dr. Ramayya’s Hospital is not panel hospital and sent list of panel hospitals only on 03.01.2011 despite requests since 2006. He was sent a letter in Hindi which language he did not know. He came to know about the rejection when he approached one of his friends knowing Hindi with the said letter and then only he came to know about the rejection of his medical claim. Thereafter he approached his Department and requested for reimbursement of medical expenses which was refused by them. He is a chronic diabetic patient.
11. The appellant contended that he sent application for NHRC and his petition was pending before it but he did not mention for how much period his application was pending there. The petitioner is the resident of Secunderabad. If he was diligent it would not take much time to know the empanelled hospitals under REMB at Hyderabad if he personally visited their parent office. He retired as Senior Manager. If he pursued through his erstwhile subordinates it would not have taken much time. Even he can obtain the information from their departmental website or through internet. He need not spend such time to know the empanelled hospitals. It is his duty to know the contents of the letter immediately when he received it in unknown language. Giving legal notice does not constitute limitation in all circumstances and it depends upon other factors also. Even assuming that the delay is 215 days and not 413 days, there should be sufficient ground to condone the same.
12. The appellant was not diligent enough in pursuing the matter and kept quiet and slept for months together and had come with the present complaint seeking to condone the whopping delay. No bonafides are shown to accept the version of the appellant to condone the abnormal, exorbitant and whopping delay of 413 or 215 days in filing the complaint. The cause for the delay shown by the appellant/petitioner appears to be superficial without any evidence. This Commission does not see any reasonable ground to accept the version of the petitioner. The causes shown by the appellant are not reasonable and plausible to condone the delay. The appellant failed to produce any evidence on record to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. We may also state that the petitioner should not be denied the right accrued to him on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. What is required is that the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable.
13. The parties seeking relief have to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. Sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons supported by material and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond prescribed period will not be exercised in a light and routine mannter.
14. We may also state that the petitioner should not be denied the right accrued to him on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. What is required is that the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation without supporting material is not sufficient for condoning the delay. If he does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that it does not reflect ‘sufficient cause, then the application deserves no consideration. When consistently rigmarole facts are pleaded without any justification or proof, the delay of 413 or even 215 days cannot be condoned.
15. After considering all the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed. This Commission answered Point No.1, accordingly in favour of the respondents/ opposite parties and against the appellant/complainant.
16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order. There are no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DATED : 22.06.2017.
