IA/3896/2016

       Delay of 9 days in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned.

REVISION PETITIONS

       Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that, notwithstanding the quantum of the amount involved and their conduct before the State Commission, the Insurance Company is keen to press the Revision Petition.

Accordingly, we have heard Learned counsel for the Petitioners.

       Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.8.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha at Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in FA/188/2015, Tata AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and its functionaries have preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).  By the impugned order, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners has been dismissed on the short ground that despite sufficient opportunities, the Petitioners had failed to pay the costs of ₹1,500/- to the complainant.  The State Commission has noticed that the delay of 78 days in filing the Appeal by the Petitioners was condoned vide its order dated 12.6.2015, subject to payment of said costs.  The case was fixed for hearing on 16.7.2015.  On that date, more time was sought to pay the said costs and acceding to the prayer, the matter was adjourned to 5.8.2015.  On that date, yet again, counsel for the Petitioners sought further time to pay the costs, stating that despite best efforts, he was unable to comply with the said orders and deposit the costs. 

In the light of the afore-noted factual scenario, highlighted in the impugned order, which clearly shows the recalcitrant conduct of the Petitioners, we are of the view that the State Commission was left with no option but to pass the impugned orders.  No Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Authority is expected to function at the whims and fancies of a litigant.  The State Commission was thus, fully justified in declining the request for further time for compliance with its order passed about two months ago.  It would have caused unwarranted harassment to the Complainant.  More so, when in the first instance it was liberal in condoning the delay of 78 days in filing the Appeal, for which delay the only explanation was lack of communication between the Petitioners and their lawyer. 

Under the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. 

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.