1. BHANWAR KANWAR & ANR.R/o. 48-49, Kumawat Colony, Khatipur, JhotwaraJaipurRajasthan2. STATE INSURANCE & P.F. DEPARTMENT (GENERAL INSURANCE)Vita Bhawan, D Block, R.C. Dawe Marg, IIIrd Floor, Jyoti NagarJaipurRajasthan
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 26 Aug 2010
ORDER
Heard counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 32 days in filing the revision. The cause shown for delay in filing the revision is found in paragraph 3 of the condonation application which reads as under: That there has been a delay of 33 days in filing the instant revision petition due to involvement of multiplicity of authorities in the decision making process and to appoint counsel for preparing and conducting the case as the petitioner is of Jaipur and the same is a time consuming process. The said explanation can by no stretch of imagination be said to be sufficient to condone the delay as no corresponding details in support of the said explanation have been given. In the absence of the same, standard explanation cannot be accepted. Therefore, on this count alone, the revision is liable to be rejected. The revision is filed against concurrent findings of Fora below. Even on merits also, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The District Forum had ordered both the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with 9% interest, Rs.20,000/- towards damages for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. No appeal was filed by the Opposite Party No.1 and the order as against Opposite Party No.1 had attained finality. The appeal filed by OP-2 / Petitioner was dismissed by State Commission against which revision has been filed. The petitioner had in fact deducted premium from the salary of the husband of the complainant but did not forward the same to the Opposite Party No.1 on account of which, Opposite Party No.1 had repudiated the claim filed by the husband of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the nomination form was not submitted by the husband of the complainant on account of which, there was delay in sending the premium to Opposite Party No.1. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, there is no mention of the fact that nomination was submitted late by husband of petitioner. In the said written statement, mere statement has been made that as soon as the opposite parties received the nomination, it was sent to Opposite Party No.1. It appears that the petitioner had deducted the premium even without receiving the nomination. There is nothing to show that the complainant was responsible for not furnishing the nomination in time. There is certainly deficiency on the part of the petitioner in not remitting the premium on time on account of which, the complainant/respondent had to approach the District Forum on rejection of the claim on the ground that the premium had been sent with delay by the present petitioner. All these aspects were considered by the State Commission. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
