BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 830/2021
TATA AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd., 2nd Floor, JP and Devi Jambukeshwar Arcade, No.69, Millers Road, Bangalore 560 052, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. (By Sri Prashanth.T.Pandit) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Mr. Eijapeeran, S/o Peerpasha Jahagiradar, Age : 26 years, Occ : Business, R/o J.M. Road, Hakeem Chowk, Vijayapur 586 109. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Mr. Shabaz Sayad, S/o Shamshuddin Sayad, Age : 24 years, Occ : Driver, R/o J.M. Road Mustafa Colony, Near Khuni Masjid, Vijayapur 586 109. | |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.23.10.2020 passed in CC.No.104/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayapur.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he obtained the insurance policy bearing No.0155943477 00 towards his vehicle which is valid from 01.04.2016 to 13.04.2017. During the policy is in force, the vehicle met with an accident and the complainant claimed for own damage claim. After verification, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim for the reason that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. Hence, the Opposite Party showed inability to settle the claim. Aggrieved by the said repudiation, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and prayed for settlement of the own damage claim. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,72,233/-.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal. Heard the arguments of appellant on admission.
4. The appellant preferred this appeal after long gap of 308 days delay. The affidavit sworn by the appellant reflects that after receiving certified copy of the Order, they have delivered the said Order to the advocate and sent all the papers to the concerned department for their approval to file the appeal before this Commission. Due to lack of communication, comply the procedure of company to file the appeal, receiving the opinion from their advocate, there is a delay in filing the appeal. Hence, prayed to condone the delay as the delay is not intentional, but for bonafide reasons.
5. But, we consider that the reasons sworn in the affidavit is not a just cause for condonation of delay. The appellant supposed to file the appeal within a stipulated time of 45 days of the Order passed by the District Commission, but, they have taken 308 days to discuss and filing the appeal. Hence, the reasons given for not filing the appeal well within time are not satisfactory. There is no any extraordinary reason for not filing the appeal within time.
6. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2018(2) CPR 507 (NC) the matter between M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., v/s Kulvinder Singh Bahl and also 2019 (1) CPR 5 (NC) in the case of Care Hospital, Nagpur v/s Naresh Gopalakrishna Vyas & others, it is held that the appeal can be dismissed on the point of delay alone. Hence, we found that there is no justifiable reason to admit the appeal. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission as it is barred by limitation.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
