This Application, under Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, the “Act”), has been filed by the Petitioner, namely, M/s. Road Safety Club Ltd./Opposite Party No 3 in the Complaint, praying for review of the order, dated 08.11.2019, passed by a Bench of this Commission comprising me (Justice R.K. Agrawal, President) and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member. Since, Mrs. M. Shreesha had demitted office, the President has directed to list this Application before us.

2.      By Order, dated 08.11.2019, the Revision Petition No. 1271 of 2017 filed by the Petitioner along with the Claim In Charge, SKI Retail Capital Ltd./Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, was dismissed upholding the concurrent finding of facts returned by the Fora below to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not obtaining the insurance policy for its Member, Y. Venkatagopal Reddy in terms of the membership condition. It was observed as under:-

“        Under the personal accident policy, a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs is payable for all accidental deaths, other than death due to accident while driving on a two-wheeler.  It also enjoins upon the Petitioner to arrange the insurance cover within one week from the date of enrolment of membership or from the expiry of the existing insurance, whichever is later. From a reading of terms and conditions of Safety Club Programme, it is absolutely clear that it was for the Petitioner to arrange the insurance cover for its members, which, admittedly, it had failed to do so.  The submission that it is for M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. to settle the claim of insurance is bereft of any merit for the simple reason that if the insurance cover has not been arranged by the Petitioner, the insurance company cannot be called upon to pay the insurance claim.  The liability is of the Petitioner to arrange the insurance cover, which it had failed to do so and, therefore, under the terms and conditions for the Safety Club Programme the Petitioner is deficient in rendering service and, therefore, the two Fora below have rightly directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs under the insurance scheme.  The amount of interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the District Forum has also been upheld.

3.      The Review Application has been filed on 25.02.2021 along with an Application (I.A. No. 2978 of 2021) seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of 450 days in filing the same. The delay is sought to be condoned, inter-alia, on the grounds that:-

(i)      the Petitioner Company is based in Chennai though the Complaint was filed in Ananthapuram, Andhra Pradesh and accordingly, they were informed about the dismissal order; 

(ii)      the local Counsel at Hyderabad was not of much assistance in procuring the Court records to file the Review Application;

(iii)     substantial time was lost in tracking and obtaining the case record from the District Forum and the State Commission and by that time, due to Covid 19, there was lockdown;

4.      The explanation furnished by the Review Petitioner for condonation of inordinate delay of 450 days is wholly unsatisfactory, insufficient and vague. The Review Application is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.

5.      Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this Review Application. The Order, dated 08.11.2019 is sought to be reviewed on the grounds that; (a) Petitioner was not under any obligation to pay any amount to the Complainants and it was the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company which was liable to compensate the Complainants; (b) during the proceedings of the case, the Petitioner could not place the Certificate binding the Insurance Company to compensate the Complainants; (c) Certificate No. ACL/WL0000146218 valid from 09.09.2010 to 08.09.2011 was issued by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company in favour of Venkata Gopal Reddy on 24.08.2010; and (d) since, Venkata Gopal Reddy had died during the currency of the above policy on 07.06.2011, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability;

6.      Having perused the grounds urged by the Petitioner in support of the review, we are of the considered view that the Review Application is utterly misconceived. The Order, dated 08.11.2019 was passed based on the material available on record and after hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties. An Order can be reviewed if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. We do not find any such mistake apparent on record. Consequently, the Review Application is dismissed.

7.      This order shall be communicated by the Registry to the Review Petitioner.