(Delivered on 10/02/2022)
PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. Appellant- Smt. Kusum Kohale has preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 08/05/2018 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in Misc. Application No. MA/17/12 in Complaint No.CC/17/184 whereby the application for condonation of delay of three years and 4 months in filing the complaint came to be rejected. (Appellant shall hereinafter be referred as complainant and respondent as O.P. for the sake of convenience)
2. Short facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under,
Complainant– Smt. Kusum Sheshrao Kohale is the wife of Sheshrao Kohale who was an agriculturist having agricultural land at Mouza- Wagholi. O.P. Nos. 1&2- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and O.P.No. 3 – Taluka Krishi Adhikari. The husband of the complainant had taken Farmer Accident Insurance Policy for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 22/09/2012 the husband of the complainant namely Sheshrao Kohale met with an accident while he was proceeding from Kanhan to Ramtek and so the complainant being the wife of deceased – Sheshrao Kohale had applied for insurance claim on the ground that she had not supplied the necessary documents. Along with the complaint, the complainant had also filed an application for condonation of delay of three years and 4 months in preferring the complaint. O.P. Nos. 1&2- The New India Assurance Company Ltd opposed the application for condonation of delay and has submitted that the delay of three years and four months was not explained in satisfactory manner and so the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur dismissed the application for condonation of delay by reasoned order dated 08/05/2018. Against this impugned order dated 08/05/2018 passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur the present appellant/complainant has come up in appeal.
3. We have heard Ms. Madavi, learned advocate for the appellant /complainant as well as Mr. C.B. Pande, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1&2/O.P. Nos. 1&2. It is vehemently submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not taken into consideration the material aspects namely that appellant – Smt. Kusum Kohale being the wife of deceased Sheshrao Kohale was illiterate and poor lady and she had made sincere efforts to approach the concerned Police Station for getting the copy of Inquest Panchnama and after lots of efforts she got copy of FIR but same was not duly signed by the proper authority. Appellant – Smt. Kusum Kohale also being illiterate lady had not kept the acknowledgement copy of the application which was submitted by her before the Police Station for getting the Inquest Panchnama but these efforts made by the appellant were not properly appreciated by the Insurance Company as well as the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. The learned advocate for the appellant has further submitted before us that though the appellant had given satisfactory explanation for delay of three years and four months the same was not at all considered. Further it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has also not properly appreciated the various citations given by the learned advocate for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. C.B. Pande, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1&2/O.P. Nos. 1&2 in this matter.
4. Admittedly, the husband of the appellant had availed of insurance under the Farmer Accidental Insurance Policy and so was entitled for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. There is also no serious dispute that there was delay of three years and four months in preferring the complaint. Appellant herein has taken a specific plea that she was poor and illiterate lady and therefore there was huge delay in obtaining the copy of Inquest Panchnama and other documents from the concerned Police Station but grounds stated by her were not accepted by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant had given satisfactory explanation for huge delay of three years and four months and delay was not intentional or deliberate. On this aspect the learned advocate for the appellant has heavily relied upon judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Bombay High Court.
5. At the outset, Ms. Madavi, learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the judgment in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 584. In that case it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the expression “sufficient cause” used in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard and fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay. A liberal approach should be adopted in such matters so that substantive right of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay. The learned advocate for the appellant has also heavily relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemlata Verma Vs. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. and judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court( Aurangabad Bench) in the case of Manoranjan Pradhan & Anr. Vs. Union of India , reported in 2016(6) ALL MR 56. We have carefully gone these judgments as well as judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai. In all these judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Bombay High Court have emphasized that liberal approach needs to be adopted to serve the ends of justice while dealing with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the case of Manoranjan Pradhan & Anr. Vs. Union of India, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has observed that condonation sought on the ground of illiteracy, poverty and lack of communication must be considered in a liberal and beneficial manner.
6. We have heard the learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1&2 on this aspect of limitation and we have also carefully gone through the impugned order dated 08/05/2018 passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has given a finding that the delay of 3 years and five months is huge delay and same is not duly supported by any documents. After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant. We are also unable to accept that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has not properly applied its mind to the fact that the wife of deceased Sheshrao Kohale was illiterate and poor lady. On the other hand, we find that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has taken all these aspects in to consideration. Further after going through the various citations filed on record, we are of the view that the same will not help the case of the appellant since we are dealing with the aspect of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no liberal approach can be adopted looking to the delay of more than three years in the present matter. As such we hereby hold that the appeal is devoid of any substance and so we pass the following order.
ORDER
- Appeal is hereby dismissed. .
- No order as to costs.
- Copy of order be furnished to both of parties, free of cost.
