Order No. 08
Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant/The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited is present.
Today is fixed for passing order upon the application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company on 22nd August, 2022.
The case record is taken for passing order.
Perused the entire contention of the application.
Seen the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Purba Medinipur in connection with consumer complaint case no. 502/2017 titled Bhim Charan Pramanik –Vs- The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and another.
Seen the materials available on the case record.
Considered the submissions advanced on 31st January, 2024 by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company.
By way of present application the Appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 1662 days in preferring the present appeal. It has been contended that assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 the present Appellant has preferred the appeal on various grounds as highlighted in the memorandum of appeal. It has been categorically contended that the Appellant did not have any opportunity whatsoever to receive any information relating to filing of the complaint case as well as execution proceedings. According to the Appellant order No. 3 dated 12.09.2018 passed in the execution proceeding goes to prove that the Ld. Executing Court was pleased to consider the remark of the postal authority “Left” as good service and such findings of the Ld. District Commission is totally against the law of the land. It has been categorically contended that the Appellant came to know about the execution proceeding in the month of March, 2022 and on receiving intimation the Appellant came to learn about the execution proceeding arising out of the complaint case. Subsequently, the Appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on 15.03.2022 and the same was obtained on 21.03.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant also applied for obtaining the certified copy of relevant documents on 30.03.2022 and received the same on 12.04.2022. It has been further contended that the Appellant was not in a position to prefer appeal without obtaining all those documents. On receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment as well as relevant documents the matter was referred to their present Advocate on record on 02.05.2022 for the purpose of getting opinion regarding the merit of the present appeal. Accordingly, Ld. Advocate submitted his opinion on 01.06.2022 and forwarded the same to the Head Office of the Appellant on 16.06.2022 for necessary approval. Final approval was received on 29.07.2022 and the matter was again sent to the Ld. Advocate for drafting the present appeal on 05.08.2022. Memo of appeal was drafted and the same was submitted at the office of the Appellant on 12.08.2022. After maintaining required formalities the appeal was filed before this Hon`ble State Commission on 22.08.2022. Hence, there is total delay of 1162 days (excluding the statutory period) in filing the present appeal. The Appellant has also submitted that there is no intentional laches on their part in preferring the appeal. According to the Appellant if the prayer for condonation of delay is not allowed the Appellant will be highly prejudiced and will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Respondent No. 1 Bhim Charan Pramanik entered appearance in the present appeal on 08.12.2022. Thereafter, on 08.05.2023 Respondent No. 1 prayed for filing W/O against the application for condonation of delay and the same was allowed and the next date was fixed on 31.08.2023. On that date both sides have prayed for adjournment on the ground of amicable settlement. Such prayer was allowed for the sake of justice and the next date was fixed on 09.10.2023 for hearing upon the application for condonation of delay. On 31.01.2024 Respondent No. 1 did not turn up and consequently, the delay condonation application was heard in the absence of the Respondent. Despite availing opportunity Respondent did not file any W/O against the application for condonation of delay.
The delay calculation sheet prepared by the office goes to indicate that there was total delay of 1628 days in preferring the present appeal. In Para-7 of the application the Appellant has categorically admitted that there was delay of 1662 days (including the statutory period) in preferring the present appeal. Undisputedly, the Appellant/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal on 22.08.2022 assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Purba Medinipur in connection with consumer complaint case no. 502/2017. It is crystal clear from the case record that the Appellant/Insurance Company despite obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and order did not prefer the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation. No plausible reason has been assigned in the body of the above application as to what prompted the Appellant to keep silent for such a long period. Moreover, during the course of hearing Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company has drawn our attention to the order dated 12.09.2018 vide order no. 3 passed in connection with the execution proceeding being no. EA/112/2018 arising out of the CC case No. 502/2017 and vehemently submitted that the Ld. Commission below considered the remark “Left” as good service and proceeded with the execution proceeding and also fixed the next date on 03.10.2018 for payment i.d. W/A. It is to be remembered here that the present appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 passed in the CC Case No. 502/2017. This is a regular appeal. This is not an appeal challenging the order of the Ld. Commission below passed in the execution proceeding. The submission of the Ld. Counsel has no legs to stand upon and cannot be and should not be considered at any score. Such submission is absolutely misleading. Moreover, each days delay has not been properly and satisfactorily explained in the body of the application. All these aspects go to establish that the Appellant/Insurance Company was not at all diligent in preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. Thus, being the position we have no hesitation to observe that the application for condonation of delay filed at the behest of the Appellant/Insurance Company is liable to be rejected in limini.
It is, therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company on 12.08.2022 is rejected but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Thus, the application for condonation of delay stands disposed of.
In view of the above order the appeal being no. A/206/2022 is also dismissed being barred by the law of limitation.
Note accordingly.
