Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/172/2016

Birla Sun Life Ins. Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagdish s/o Suraj Mal - Opp.Party(s)

Prateek Kashilwal

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 172 /2016

 

Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. One India Bulls Centre,Tower 1, 15-16^th floor Jupiter Mill compound ,841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Jagdish s/oSurajmal r/o Bikhapura Ward no.2, Tonk.

 

 

Date of Order 14.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Prakash Sharma counsel for the appellant

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Tonk dated 3.12.2015 and the matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

 

The contention of the appellant in the application is that impugned order was passed on 3.12.2015. Application for obtaining the certified copy was moved on 11.12.2015 and on the same day copy was delivered to the counsel but thereafter in the application it has been narrated that local counsel received the certified copy on 18.12.2015 which is contradictory in itself. Further it has been submitted that local office received the copy on 30.12.2015 but no reason for this delay has been mentioned or explained.

 

Further it has been submitted that re-investigation was ordered but there was no nexus of the re-investigation and filing of the appeal. Appeal could be filed in absence of report of the investigating officer which has not been done by the appellant.

 

3

 

A designed pretext has been coined by the appellant that the matter was sent for drafting of the appeal but it could not be drafted as the documents were not with the company and whole blame has been assigned to the complainant that he has not furnished the copies. Be that may be the case during the pendency of the complaint an application has been submitted by the company to furnish the copies of the documents which has been dismissed by the District Forum. Hence, it was within the knowledge of the company that the documents were not with them but surprisingly to procure the certified copies application has been moved on 5.2.2016 after the expiry of period of limitation. Thus, whole explanation has no ground to stand. It is not reasonable and plausible and delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned. Hence, the application is rejected.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellants on merits of the case also and it is a hopeless case on merits. The appellants had came with a case that the deceased was suffering from Cancer and she has been treated in SMS Hospital,Jaipur and some documents to verify this contention were also placed on record before the court below but the respondent has submitted

 

4

 

that documents were not in relation to wife of the respondent but it was some other Barji Devi living in Baralon ki Gali, Dooni District Tonk and affidavit of Jagdish husband of another Barji Devi and his nephew Sitaram and other documents have also been submitted which clearly proves that the documents which are submitted by the appellant were not related to the deceased insured and the court below has rightly rejected the contention of the appellants.

 

Hence, there is no explanation to the delay and on the merit also it is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm