Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

MA/20/34

Smt Ashabai Siduappa Paralkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Abhaykumar Jadhav

18 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/20/34
( Date of Filing : 18 Dec 2020 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/20/131
 
1. Smt Ashabai Siduappa Paralkar
Gevrai Tal Gevrai
Beed
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd
Through its manager, Delta Plaza, Old Tata Press Bldg, Veer Sawarkar marg, Prabhadevi, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400025
Mumbai
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 18 Feb 2022
Final Order / Judgement

                  (Below M.A.20/34 in CC/20/131 for delay condonation filed by complainant)

                 Per M.P.Kasar, Member

Heard Complainant and opposite party through their Advocates, perused application and reply. The issue is whether delay is condonable? We answer yes in view of our consideration as follows –

It is dispute of opposite party that, no relevant extract showing deceased was farmer also complainant has not provided form 6C indicating the heir ship of the deceased farmer thus complainant has not provided any document in support of her claim, claim file before MACT has been disposed of vide judgement and award dated 25/11/10 and MACT Beed granted the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.730000/- hence complainant is not illiterate according to opposite party. According to opposite party no proper explanation of the delay is mentioned hence according to opposite party delay is not condonable and application be dismissed. Considering the nature and concept and purpose of Insurance Scheme i.e.Shetkari Janta Apghat Vima Yojna which is admittedly for the agriculturist and their dependens.It has observed from the perusal of 7/12 extractat page No.19 of complainant we did not observed name of complainant but observed name of deceased in occupancy segment of extract is mentioned. Perusedjudgement passed by Hon’ble State Commissionin First Appeal No.FA 15/623 vide dated 3/4/18  Smt.Kamalavati Suryakant Rane v/s National Insurance Company and ors. Considering issues related to insurance claim not get to complainant and issues raised by the opposite party can be decide on meritso delay caused to file present complaint we are of the opinion that, is condonable in viewof circumstances of complainant & principle of natural justice we pass order as

                   ORDER

Misc.Application No.20/34for delay condonation filed by the complainant is hereby allowed allowed below section 69 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and delay of 12 years 10 month and 22 days is hereby condoned in the interest of justice and no order as to cost.

                                                 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.