NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AJMER SINGH KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('State Commission' for short) by which the State Commission has upheld the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the District Forum, Gwalior in case no. 170/2009. By its order in question, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the petitioner Company payment of IDV with 10% interest and cost of Rs. 1200/-. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the petitioner Insurance Co. preferred an appeal before the State Commission which did not find favour with the State Commission and hence vide its impugned order, the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and disposed of the appeal of the petitioner Insurance Co. by clarifying that the refund of the premium amount shall be available only on the first policy issued by D. O. -I No. 320/302.

(2.) At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 201 days in filing the present revision petition. We have, therefore, heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the application for condonation of the delay. According to the petitioner, the delay is of 55 days. Perusal of the application filed by the petitioner shows that the impugned order dated 26.04.2010 was received by the Gwalior office of the petitioner Co. and the same was sent to the Regional Office at Indore. The Regional Office of the petitioner Co. at Indore sent the claim file along with the impugned order to the counsel for legal opinion. Thereafter, it is mentioned that the Regional Office after receiving the legal opinion referred the matter to the Head Office of the petitioner Co. at Kolkata for taking further action in the matter. The Head Office at Kolkata further referred the matter to the Regional Office at Delhi whereupon the Delhi Office appointed a counsel for filing the revision petition with the National Commission and eventually the revision petition came to be filed on 18.02.2011. No dates have been mentioned in the application as to when the matter was referred by the Gwalior Office to Indore Office and by Indore Office to the Head Office and thereafter by the Head Office to the Delhi Office. In relation to the request for condonation of delay, the dates are very important and it is well settled by now that each day's delay has to be explained and justified. However, in the absence of the dates, it is not known or explained as to how much time was taken by different offices of the petitioner Co. and what was the justification for taking as much time. Besides this, it is seen that another submission has been made in respect of the delay in para 13 of the condonation application and the same is reproduced below:-

(3.) Here again, it is not indicated as to when the application for clarification of the impugned order was filed before the State Commission although the date of the order of the State Commission, which was passed on 27.09.2010 has been indicated. No other document has been filed by the petitioner indicating the date of the application seeking clarification in respect of the impugned order of the State Commission. In view of this, it is clear that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner justifying the inordinate delay of 201 days in filing the revision petition. Even if we agree with the version of the petitioner and count the limitation from the date of the clarificatory order of the State Commission passed on 27.09.2010 which was, according to petitioner's own admission, received by the petitioner Co. on 11.10.2010 still there is delay in filing the revision petition since the period of only 90 days is available for filing the revision petition under the law. While we are quite conscious of the fact that the Courts have to adopt a liberal and pragmatic rather than pedantic approach while construing the reasons for delay, the fact remains that the petitioner, on his part, has to explain each day's delay with justification for that delay. In the present case, the petitioner and learned counsel have not only failed to offer any convincing and satisfactory reasons for the delay, it appears from the submissions made before us that the petitioner has taken the condonation for granted by treating it as a mere formality. It must be appreciated that filing of revision petition within the prescribed period is the requirement under the law and unless there are adequate and convincing reasons for the delay, the same cannot be condoned. Since, we are not at all convinced with the vague and general submissions made by the petitioner in support of the delay in question, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.