Delays in the Justice system inflict so much pain & misery on the victim that the oft-quoted legal maxim ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ seems an understatement. Delays in the Justice system actually serve to punish the victim, instead of the perpetrator. One can see this irony in the two recent orders of the apex consumer court. In both cases, the complainants did not get the relief that they sought during their lifetime.
Both cases pertain to repudiation of insurance claims. These were not high-value claims, yet the insurance companies thought it fit to file appeals against the orders of the consumer courts at the district & the state levels, thereby dragging on the case. Inordinate delays in hearing the cases, particularly before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , only made matters worse & made a mockery of the time limit of 90 days prescribed under the consumer protection law for resolution of disputes. .
Following the theft of a tractor in Sept 2008 & rejection of his claim by the insurer, Sri Lal Meena filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum in 2009 . However, it was only in 2012 that the District Forum gave its verdict –that the insurer should pay ₹3,30,000 towards the loss of the tractor and ₹5000 towards litigation costs within two months. Insurer is liable to pay 9% interest on delayed payment, the Court said
Instead of complying with the order, the insurance company filed an appeal. The Rajasthan State Consumer Commission dismissed it- but after 3 years - in 2015.
That was not the end of the matter. The insurer-United India Insurance Company- filed a revision petition against it (RP No 2674of 2015) before the National Commission. On Feb 12, 2020, when the case came up for hearing, the Commission was informed that the consumer had died the previous year. The Commission therefore asked the insurance company to file an application for substitution of the complainant with his legal heirs within four weeks.
The commission however found that even after one year, When the case was taken up, the insurer had not complied with this order & was seeking more time. Exasperated, the commission said it was ‘just, equitable & conscionable to summarily dismiss the case’ & also impose a penalty of ₹1 lakh on the insurer. While ₹50,000 should be paid to the legal heirs in addition to the amount specified by the District Forum, ₹50,000 should be deposited in the Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, the commission said.
The second case pertaining to the theft of a motor cycle was more or less similar. Here too, the District Forum allowed the complaint through its order in Dec 2012 & the State Commission, Rajasthan, dismissed the appeal of the insurance company in March 2013. But Munna Singh’s happiness was short lived. The insurer-Shriram General Insurance Company - filed a revision petition (RP No 2115 of 2013) before the National Commission in May 2013 & there it got stuck!
On July 1, 2020- when the case came up for hearing, the Commission was informed that the complainant was dead. The Commission noted in its order of February 16 that the insurance company had not filed an application, as directed, to replace the complainant with his legal heirs. Even the representative of the insurer was not present. So it dismissed the case for non-prosecution & imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh.
Cases such as these should act as a wake up call & force the government as well as the consumer courts to take all necessary steps to expedite the process of adjudication. While imposition of steep punitive damages will discourage meritless appeals, timely appointment of adjudicating members to the apex consumer court by the central government (and to the consumer courts at the state & the district level by state governments ) will go a long way in preventing delays. The consumer courts also need to stop giving adjournments at the behest of lawyers.
Source Link
