PROGRESSIVE PACKAGING INDUSTRIES Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. B.K. Taimni, MemberPetitioner was the complainant before the District Forum. His complaint was that his vehicle Tata Estate was insured with the opposite party for Rs. 4 lakhs which met with accident on 5.6.1993 which was reported to the O.P., who appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor assessed the loss on cash-loss basis at Rs. 3.5 lakhs, of which Rs. 1.60 lakh was paid on 10.9.1993 as full and final settlement - the remaining amount of Rs. 1.90 lakh being the cost of salvage not paid. Since full Rs. 3.50 lakhs was not paid, a complaint was filed before the State Commission in July, 1995. District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material and evidence in record, dismissed the complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed only to the extent of modifying the order of the District Forum that O.P. Insurance Company shall arrange to dispose off the salvage and pay that amount to the complainant. Not being satisfied with the order, this revision petition has been filed by the complainant. We see that the revision petition is barred by limitation. It is his case that it was the fault of the lawyer, where papers were misplaced, causing delay in filing this revision petition in time. Complainant was also not aware of any time limit for filing revision petition, this has been explained in the application for condonation of delay, which needs to be considered. On merits, it is his case that the Surveyor, while communicating the loss had stated the loss based on current market price of the vehicle at Rs. 3.50 lakhs and it was this amount which was agreed to by the complainant, but not paid. It is also his case that the payment of Rs. 1.60 lakh was not for full and final settlement. In fact the signatures of the complainant was obtained on a blank paper and he had signed, as the complainant was in a shock over the loss of his son in the accident.

(2.) WE have seen the material on record and heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The only ground advanced before us for delay in filing this petition is that the Counsel who had handled the case at appellate stage misplaced certain documents necessary for filing the appeal. It is admitted position that the State Commission passed the order on 24.8.2001 and the petitioner got a copy of the order on 31.12.2001, yet not filing revision petition till 15.5.2002 clearly bars the petition by limitation. There is no affidavit of the concerned Counsel to the effect that papers were misplaced in his office. What were these papers which came in the way of filing petition before us. There is a clear delay of 72 days, for which, we do not see sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. If there has been a deficiency in rendering services on the part of the Counsel, party shall be free to take action against him as per law. Even on merits, we see that accident took place on 5.6.1993 and Rs. 1.60 lakh were accepted as full and final settlement which is signed by the complainant. As observed rightly by the District Forum, while we have sympathy for the complainant for the loss of his son in the accident, but he is a literate businessman who will not sign a paper without seeing - much less a blank paper as alleged - after almost three months of the unfortunate accident. Legal notice to opposite party is served after over two months of the receipt of money by the complainant. WE are in full agreement with both the lower Forums that the complainant knew what he was signing. Filing a complaint after almost two years of the accident do not help him. In our view, no case is made out to interfere in the orders of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 21B of the C.P. Act. Petition is dismissed both as barred by limitation and devoid of merits. The parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed.