BHAGWANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT No. 16/2004 was filed by the appellant, as according to her, there was deficiency of service on the part of the respondents because she was not provided compensation regarding the death of her late husband Shri Gulab Singh within a reasonable time, therefore, she claimed the amount along with interest, etc. This complaint was contested and resisted by both the respondents, amongst others, plea of complaint being time -barred was also raised by both of them. When this case came up today for consideration, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that even if it be assumed that delay is to be condoned, still appellant has no case on merits because her husband had not died as a consequence of accident in terms of the policy. Therefore, they submitted that there is no substance in this appeal even on its merits and may be dismissed.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that an application under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay in filing the complaint was filed by the appellant. Along with it, Annexure -XY was attached by her. This is a letter from respondent No. 2 to Executive Engineer of respondent No. 1 for supply of certain documents. Though complaint had been filed on 8.1.2004, application under Section 24A was filed on 7.4.2005 more than a year after filing of the complaint and in the ordinary course of things, if prayer for condonation of delay is made, a case has to be made out before complaint is entertained. However, keeping in view the system in which a litigant is placed, we cannot lose sight of the fact that for lapse, if any on the part of the Counsel in not filing application along with complaint, a litigant like the appellant (a poor widow in this case should not be made to suffer.

(3.) ANNEXURE -XY clearly suggests that Insurance Company is wanting the respondent No. 1 to provide necessary information. There is nothing on the record to suggest that needful was done. Faced with this situation, Mr. Vasudeva on behalf of respondent No. 1 stated that since death of Gulab Singh was natural and was not on account of any accident, therefore, there was hardly any information/document that could be provided by his client to respondent No. 2. We are not satisfied with this submission because nothing prevented the respondent No. 1 to have brought all these facts to the notice of respondent No. 1. Whether Annexure XY constitutes repudiation of the claim of the appellant? Our answer is in the negative. Reason being that a mere letter or reminder asking from a party provide certain information/documents and on failure to do the needful, Insurance Company to treat the claim as "no claim", does not amount to repudiation. For taking this view we place reliance on the decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1473/2004 dated 21.4.2006, in case , National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sukhdev Singh Gill and Others., 2006 2 CPJ 333 Such a plea negatived in the following terms by the National Commission :