Shri Dudhsakhar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Kolhapur - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111146
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided OnSep-08-2009
Case NumberFirst Appeal No.1119 of 2008 (In Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2006)
JudgeShri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member. Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member.
AppellantShri Dudhsakhar Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
RespondentNational Insurance Company Ltd., Kolhapur
Advocates:Adv. Shri A.V. Patwardhan for Appellant. Adv. Shri Sanjay Mhatre for Respondent.
Excerpt:
per smt. s.p. lale, honble member:- this appeal is directed against the dismissal order dated 25/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.240/2006. the appeal is filed by org.complainant since, the complaint stood dismissed. the complainant has obtained insurance policy bearing no. 2708001/02/7700002 with the opposite party for the period of 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2003 to cover the risk of theft, misappropriation, fire etc. said policy covers risk of fire, misappropriation and burglary. the sum insured under the said policy was rs.55 lakhs. complainant had paid an amount of rs.32,330/- as a premium to the opposite party. according to complainant, in the month of september-2002 during government audit, the complainant discovered misappropriation of funds by their employee mr.maruti gurav. therefore, complainant lodged claim with the opposite party-bank with all necessary papers. however, opposite party repudiated the claim on relying upon the exclusion clause “c. complainant further stated that since the funds were misappropriated by one of the employee, who was never director or partner of the complainant and repudiation of the claim by the opposite party was wrong and baseless and therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before forum below for deficiency in service. opposite party filed its written statement and pleaded that opposite party communicated to the complainant vide its letter dated 08/10/2004 that the claim under reference is repudiated as the complainant has not complied with all mandatory conditions as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy. it further pleaded that the claim of the complainant was not covered as per terms and conditions and exception of the insurance policy. therefore, there was no deficiency in service on part of opposite party and finally it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. after considering the documents and affidavits placed before it, the ld.district forum dismissed the complaint and passed the impugned order. we heard adv.shri a.v.patwardhan for appellant and adv.shri sanjay mhatre for respondent. there is delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. therefore, appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. it is stated that after receipt of the copy of the impugned order on 17/06/2008, it was decided to file appeal. however, the recovery officer- mr.keshav s.vartak, who filed the affidavit, did not know a lawyer from mumbai, also there were torrential rains and hence, the lawyer could not be reached. hence, there is delay of 29 days. we find the explanation offered is quite vague and does not provide any reason to accept the same. therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay. accordingly, misc.application no.1568/2008 for delay stands rejected. consequently, appeal also does not survive for consideration. hence, we pass the following order:- order: 1. misc.application no. 1568/2008 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration. 3. no order as to costs. 4. copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
Judgment:

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member:-

This appeal is directed against the dismissal order dated 25/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.240/2006. The appeal is filed by org.complainant since, the complaint stood dismissed.

The complainant has obtained insurance policy bearing no. 2708001/02/7700002 with the opposite party for the period of 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2003 to cover the risk of theft, misappropriation, fire etc. Said policy covers risk of fire, misappropriation and burglary. The sum insured under the said policy was Rs.55 Lakhs. Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.32,330/- as a premium to the opposite party. According to complainant, in the month of September-2002 during Government audit, the complainant discovered misappropriation of funds by their employee Mr.Maruti Gurav. Therefore, complainant lodged claim with the opposite party-Bank with all necessary papers. However, opposite party repudiated the claim on relying upon the exclusion clause “C. Complainant further stated that since the funds were misappropriated by one of the employee, who was never director or partner of the complainant and repudiation of the claim by the opposite party was wrong and baseless and therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before Forum below for deficiency in service.

Opposite party filed its written statement and pleaded that opposite party communicated to the complainant vide its letter dated 08/10/2004 that the claim under reference is repudiated as the complainant has not complied with all mandatory conditions as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy. It further pleaded that the claim of the complainant was not covered as per terms and conditions and exception of the insurance policy. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on part of opposite party and finally it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

After considering the documents and affidavits placed before it, the Ld.District Forum dismissed the complaint and passed the impugned order.

We heard Adv.Shri A.V.Patwardhan for appellant and Adv.Shri Sanjay Mhatre for respondent.

There is delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. It is stated that after receipt of the copy of the impugned order on 17/06/2008, it was decided to file appeal. However, the Recovery Officer- Mr.Keshav S.Vartak, who filed the affidavit, did not know a lawyer from Mumbai, also there were torrential rains and hence, the lawyer could not be reached. Hence, there is delay of 29 days. We find the explanation offered is quite vague and does not provide any reason to accept the same. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, Misc.Application No.1568/2008 for delay stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also does not survive for consideration. Hence, we pass the following order:-

Order:

1. Misc.Application No. 1568/2008 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2. Consequently, Appeal does not survive for consideration.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.