Skip to main content

Procedural delays are not to be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning the delay

In TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs RAJBALA, the claim of the insured was repudiated by the insurer due to failure of the insured to take reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle. The said repudiation was partially disallowed by the District Forum and the appeal against the said order was rejected by the State Forum.

The insurer filed a revision before the NCDRC after a delay of 95 days. The  petitioner stated that the delay has occurred due to time taken in getting the legal advice first and then to obtain the instructions of the head office for filing the revision petition.  The delay was not intentional and would not cause prejudice to other party if the same is condoned.

The NCDRC referred to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General &Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd., Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV, CicilyKallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV & R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, wherein it has been held that the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition and based on these judgments the NCDRC held that revision petition is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more