The appellant Universal Sompo General Insurance company has filed appeal along with delay condonation application. Notice issued to the respondent for hearing on delay condonation application . The ld. Adv Agrawal for appellant and the ld Adv. Shri.Kuber for respondent are present. Heard both the advocates on delay condonation application.
The District Commission, Jalna delivered judgment on 3.3.2022. The appellant received copy on 11.3.2022. The appeal was supposed to be filed within 45 days i.e. on or before 25.4.2022. However, it is filed on 29.7.2022. There is 87 days delay in preferring appeal.
It is submitted on behalf of appellant that the advocate for appellant forwarded copy to appellant. It has consumed 5 to 6 days in transit. The Mumbai office of appellant referred the copy to the in-house law team. After going through entire record it has suggested for filing appeal. Then it was forwarded to claim settlement department for opinion. Said department opined to prefer appeal. On receiving approval was referred to finance department for preparation of demand draft to deposit towards statutory amount. On 21.7.2022 said draft forwarded to concerned advocate to deposit at Jalna. He deposited it on 26.7.2022. Thus delay is caused at various official procedure. It is not deliberate or intentional delay but procedural one.
There are issue regarding to tripartite agreement and Govt circular are involved. Hence appellant prayed for condonation of delay.
On the other hand ld. Adv.Kuber opposed the application, on the ground that there is no sufficient reason given to condone the delay . Delay is not properly explained , not supported with documents. It is inordinate delay . If it is allowed the object of the Consumer Protection Act will be frustrated. He placed reliance upon following judgment of Apex court.
- In Anshul Aggarwal –Vs- New Okhla Industrial Development Auth, reported in LAWS(SC)-2011-8-125, CPJ (SC)-2011-4-63, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that , “it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras”.
- Nandkishor Damodhar Wadgaonkar –Vs- Gajanan Uttamrao Pede, reported in 2014(1) Mh.L.J., page 343, in which it is held that, “when the court realised that there was no sufficient cause disclosed in the application for condonation of delay, the court had no unlimited and unbridled discretion to condone the delay by merely observing that in the interest of justice delay deserves to be condoned”.
On hearing respective submissions, it reveals that the appellant is the insurance company. It’s Regional office is situated at Aurangabad. The judgment under challenged is from Jalna. The appeal is required to be filed at Aurangabad. The approval and opinion for preferring appeal is to be taken from several department. The advocate for appellant could not get the documents within time. Thus documents travel from department to department. Thus it is apparent that delay is not intentional or deliberate but it is procedural one. The appellant has submitted affidavit in support of application.
Hence , in the given distinguishing facts and circumstances, it will be just and proper to allow the application to give opportunity of hearing to appellant. But at the same time it can not be ignored that due to aforesaid delay some inconvenient is caused to other side, i.e. to original complainant. Hence the appellant should be saddled with certain cost. Hence the order.
O R D E R
The application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- payable to respondent/the original complainant within 4 weeks from this order.
