No. 5/19.04.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. H. Bramhachari, the Ld. Advocate are present.    Heard Mr. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Mr. Bramhachari, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.  This is an application for condonation of delay of 290 days in preferring the appeal.  In the application it has been stated that the impugned order was passed on 31.03.2009 and the Complainant obtained the copy of the order on 18.04.2009 and sent it to the Office of the O.P. – Appellant.  It is further stated that the Respondent No. 2 also communicated the order on 17.06.2009 to the Insurance Company.  As an explanation it is stated that a panel Advocate was entrusted with the matter who mislead the Appellants and did not inform anything about the future development of the case.  It is further stated that the Insurance Company received notice from the Office of the Forum on 16.12.2009 and at that stage a new Advocate was entrusted with the matter who applied for certified copy on 08.01.2010 and obtained the same on 12.01.2010 and ultimately appeal was filed on 21.01.2010.

We are surprised to see the explanation.  The first surprise is that the Insurance Co. – Appellant having it law office, no explanation has been given as to the responsibility of the said law office in such matter.  This Bench is having everyday experience in such conduct of this Insurance Company and as we take liberal view, in number of cases application for condonation are allowed in spite of some negligence on the part of the Appellant – Insurance Co.

But this case is different one and it appears that in the Forum also in spite of notice, the Insurance Co. did not contest.  It has been stated that the same Ld. Advocate who did not contest the proceeding in the Forum, was again entrusted with the matter after final order in a Forum came to be known to the Insurance Company.  This is a conduct which is not at all believable.  Again we find that the law office of the Insurance Co. has failed to discharge any duty and no explanation has been given as to such failure.

After the notice was received allegedly on 16.12.2009 from the Office of the Forum, we find that certified copy was applied for only on 08.01.2010.  This shows that even at that stage no expedition and that too by the Insurance Company.  In view of the apparent total gross negligence we are unable to condone the delay in spite of taking a liberal view.  Accordingly we dismiss the application.  Appeal also stands dismissed.