Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 301 (HP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. GOMA DEVI

2006-09-28

A.K.GOEL, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, SAROJ SHARMA

body2006
JUDGEMENT Justice:-Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President, (Oral).: Record summoned from the office of Block Primary Education Office, Sudnernagar-2, Jai Devi, District Mandi has been produced by Sh. Suneel Vasudeva, ADA. 2. Admitted facts of this case are that alongwith other staff, Baldev Singh, JBT teacher on contract basis working with H.P. Education Department was covered under Group Personal Accident Policy issued by the appellant. On,; 5.5.2000 on return after getting salary he fell down form Dhank (precipice), and on 20.5.2000 he died at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Nehru Hospital), Chandigarh. 3. Record of the case produced today by Sh.Vasudeva shows the apathy on the part of the Governmental officials, forgetting that misery can befall on any one of them. It as pointed out in this behalf by Sh. Thakur, that complaint was filed on 16.5.2005 and thereafter during the pendency of the complaint an application u/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed on 22.6.2005, being application No.38 of 2005.This application was allowed. 4. Further according to Sh.Thakur claim was initially lodged by respondent No.8 on 18.9.2000 with the appellant. As it was incomplete, as such on 6.12.2000, it was returned to the said respondent No.8. Thereafter said respondent was asked on different dates to do the needful so that the matter can be processed as per law. Finally on 16.3.2001 respondent No.8 was asked to do the needful, failing which the file will be closed as "No Claim". 5. In the aforesaid background Sh.Thakur, submitted that application u/s 24 A, supra has wrongly been allowed as it was required to be filed alongwith complaint itself. As a corollary to this he further submitted that delay was wrongly condoned Thus on this ground alone, this appeal must succeed. With a support to this plea Sh.Thakur placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court of India in P.K.Ramechandran Versus State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 SC 2276 He also referred to another judgment of Supreme court in case of Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. Versus Bijoy Kumar Roy and others. (2002) 3 SCC 165. Thus he prayed for allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order He further submitted that liability if any, in the circumstances of this case is of respondent No.6 to 8. 6, Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 contested all the pleas of Mr. (2002) 3 SCC 165. Thus he prayed for allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order He further submitted that liability if any, in the circumstances of this case is of respondent No.6 to 8. 6, Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 contested all the pleas of Mr. Thakur Per him plea that the complaint was time barred because application 24-A supra having been filed after the filing of complaint does not make any difference, therefore applying late for condonation of delay cannot be put at par as if no application had been filed. Respondents 1 to 5 did whatever was possible by engaging a counsel for filing the complaint and relied upon him. Therefore for the fault of the counsel a litigant must not suffer. 7. No doubt limitation gives a right to contest such a claim as time barred to any litigant including a government like the appellant, still being limb of the welfare state and if the claim is otherwise made out, it may not be proper for it to raise such a plea. For taking this view reliance is placed on a judgment of the High Court of H.P. in Bhuvneshwari Versus Murari Lal and others ILR 1985 (HP Series) Page 266. 8. Even otherwise a litigant does not stand to gain by filing a time barred lis, to the contrary he runs the risk of getting his case dismissed on account of delay and in the event of delay being condoned, its only consequence is that his case will be heard on merit and nothing more.Now coming to the submission of Sh. Thakur that after 16.3.2001 for want of information, his client has rightly closed the case of "No Claim". This plea does not hold good in view of the decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sukhedev Singh Gill and others 11 (2006) CPJ 333 (NC), and is thus rejected. 9. Since respondents 1 to 5 had applied for condonation of delay in filing the complaint may be after filing of complaint. After filing the same it cannot be said that this is a case of not at all having applied for the condonation of delay. That being the position ratio laid down in the two decisions of the Supreme Court and relied upon by Sh.Thakur is not applicable to the present case. After filing the same it cannot be said that this is a case of not at all having applied for the condonation of delay. That being the position ratio laid down in the two decisions of the Supreme Court and relied upon by Sh.Thakur is not applicable to the present case. 10.Faced with the situation Sh.Thakur submitted that because of no fault on part of his client claim was filed belatedly which may be exonerated from the liability to pay the interest on awarded sum be ordered to be paid by respondents 6 to 8. Closing of the case as "No claim" on account of non supply of document in our view, does not amount to repudiation. Therefore, this plea also does not hold good. We also find that the respondents 1 to 5 have been deprived of the benefit for no fault on their part. And also the purpose of policy has also boen defeated both due to acts of the respondents 6 to 8 as well as of the appellant. Because latter felt satisfied by closing the file as "No Claim." We may hasten to add here that Government officials like respondents 6 to 8 should also not have sat over this matter. In response to the letter of Insurance Company of 6-12-2000, they supplied requisite papers on 4.6.2003. Receipt of these documents, is disputed on behalf of the appellant. Obtaining the policy in question by the Government, for the benefit of beneficiaries like deceased has been defeated in this case due to negligence/remissness on the part of the officials of the Education Department. It may be clarified here that it is not the case of the appellant that the deceased is not concerned under the above noted policy. 11.We may here notice that Sh. Thakur fairly and in our opinion correctly, that if the papers had been supplied to his client well in time admissible relief if any, would have been granted, of course as per law. 12. No other point was urged. 13. In-view of the aforesaid discussion while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, Principal Secretary, Education to the Govt. Thakur fairly and in our opinion correctly, that if the papers had been supplied to his client well in time admissible relief if any, would have been granted, of course as per law. 12. No other point was urged. 13. In-view of the aforesaid discussion while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, Principal Secretary, Education to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh is directed to holding enquiry in this and fix the responsibility of the officers/officials whosoever is responsible and thereafter to deal with such officers/officials who is found responsible for not acting within reasonable time in forwarding the claim to appellant as per law. This direction is necessary keeping in view the fact, that respondents 1 to 5 have been deprived of their legitimate due for no fault of theirs and due to sheer highhandedness on part of the respondents 6 to 8. Record produced by Sh.Vasudeva is returned torn him. No costs. 14. All interim orders passed in this appeal form time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to the parties as per rules.