Per M.P.Kasar Member                       

1. Complainant states that, complainants father accidently died on 26/05/2012 so complainant filed claim form with required documents to the Talathi within time but according to the complainant opposite party not sanctioned complainants claim and kept pending. Complainant is illiterate villager  and do not posses legal knowledge hence delay caused to file present complaint so in the interest of justice delay of 06yrs 10 months may be condoned
2. Opposite party filed say stating in that, complainant failed to substantiate reason for his failure to approach this commission.  No single piece of correspondence has been placed on record to show that; complainant was diligently following up upon the claim. According to the opposite party this commission have no authority to entertain an application which is filed beyond the stipulated period of 2 years.  According to the opposite party the cause of action began and continuously ran from when the life assured expired.  Opposite party relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co.V/s National Insurance Co.Ltd. &Anr (2009)CPJ75 (SC) and Civil Appeal No.2067/2002 State Bank Of India v/s B.S.Agricultural Industries that, ‘The expression , ‘shall not admit a complaint is sufficient cause is shown. The expression , ‘shall not admit a complaint occurring in section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. ...’  ‘if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merit,  the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.’ .opposite party also relied upon Hon’ble Supreme Court decision held in the case Anshu Agrwal v/s New Okhla Industrial Development authority  reported in IV(2011)cpj63(SC) & Hon’ble National Commission  in C H Vitthal Reddy vs Manager Dist Co op central Bank Ltd. That,  ‘A consumer Forum has, therefore, to guard itself against the misuse of sub section 2 of section 24 A and should not be quick to condone the delay.  Moreover delay cannot be condoned unless other party has been noticed and heard’. Thus according to the opposite party delay has not been explained each and every day by the complainant so present application be dismissed with cost.
3. Heard Advocate of the parties, perused application and reply.  To decide application on merit though vide dated 23/09/2022 authorised   person Prerana Mhatre on behalf of opposite party Advocate gave no objection on delay application. we frame issues as follows :-

          Issues

As to Issue No.1 & 2:-No dispute regarding death of complainants husband also no dispute in regard deceased was farmer and complainant is hair of deceased and is also farmer. No dispute in regard complainant is illiterate and also no disputes in regard complainant have any knowledge of legal proceeding in hearing of delay condonation application. It is pertinent to note down that, opposite party have no objection on instant application. Also no dispute in regard complainant is covered by Farmers Accidental Insurance Policy. Perused judgement passed by Hon’ble State Commission inFirst Appeal No.FA/15/623 vide dated 03/04/2018  Smt.Kamalavati Suryakant Rane v/s National Insurance Company and others.  Considering issues related to insurance claim not get to complainant and issues raised by the opposite party can be decide on merit  so delay caused to file present complaint we are of the opinion that, is condonable in view  of circumstances of complainant & principle of natural justice we pass order as:

6698606.         ORDER

Misc.Application No.21/10 for delay condonation filed by the complainant is hereby allowed below section 69 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and delay of 06 years 10 monthis hereby condoned in the interest of justice and no order as to cost.