The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Regional Office Mumbai Vs. Chandra Mohan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1110921
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnNov-11-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.1167 of 2009 @ Misc. Application No.1457/2009 (In Consumer Complaint No. 327 of 2006)
JudgeShri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member. Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member.
AppellantThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Regional Office Mumbai
RespondentChandra Mohan
Excerpt:
oral order per shri p.n. kashalkar – honble presiding judicial member: (1) this appeal was called out first at 11.20 a.m. and none was present for the appellant. so, we kept it aside and now at 12.40 p.m. we have again called out this appeal. appellant and his advocate are not present. we are finding that this appeal is hopelessly time barred. there is a delay of 385 days for filing this appeal. for seeking condonation of delay, misc. application no. 1457/2009 has been filed. the appellant submits that delay is not intentional or deliberate and it occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and delay in filing of this appeal is neither willful nor wanton. (2) appellant states that this appellant being public sector undertaking, permission is required from regional head office and therefore, this delay has occurred in filing this appeal. this is the only ground mentioned in its delay condonation application. insurance companies by now know that appeal is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of order and they have only mentioned that this delay has occurred because they had to obtain permission from their regional head office. there is a delay of 385 days as per application filed by the applicant. so, there is delay of more than one year and appellant has simply mentioned that delay occurred because they had to obtain permission from their regional head office. the opposite partys regional office is situated at moti mahal, j.t. road, mumbai and as such there is no reason why there should be 385 days delay in filing this appeal. we are of the considered view that delay is not properly explained by the appellant and on this ground alone condonation of delay application moved by the appellant will have to be summarily rejected. hence, we pass the following order: order: (i) misc. application no.1457/2009 stands rejected. (ii) consequently this appeal does not survive. (iii) no order as to costs. (iv) copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Oral Order

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Honble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1) This appeal was called out first at 11.20 a.m. and none was present for the Appellant. So, we kept it aside and now at 12.40 p.m. we have again called out this appeal. Appellant and his Advocate are not present. We are finding that this appeal is hopelessly time barred. There is a delay of 385 days for filing this appeal. For seeking condonation of delay, Misc. Application No. 1457/2009 has been filed. The Appellant submits that delay is not intentional or deliberate and it occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant and delay in filing of this appeal is neither willful nor wanton.

(2) Appellant states that this Appellant being public sector undertaking, permission is required from regional head office and therefore, this delay has occurred in filing this appeal. This is the only ground mentioned in its delay condonation application. Insurance companies by now know that appeal is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of order and they have only mentioned that this delay has occurred because they had to obtain permission from their regional head office. There is a delay of 385 days as per application filed by the Applicant. So, there is delay of more than one year and Appellant has simply mentioned that delay occurred because they had to obtain permission from their regional head office. The Opposite Partys Regional Office is situated at Moti Mahal, J.T. Road, Mumbai and as such there is no reason why there should be 385 days delay in filing this appeal. We are of the considered view that delay is not properly explained by the Appellant and on this ground alone condonation of delay application moved by the Appellant will have to be summarily rejected. Hence, we pass the following order:

Order:

(i) Misc. Application No.1457/2009 stands rejected.

(ii) Consequently this appeal does not survive.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties.