Delhi

StateCommission

A/628/2017

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MITHILESH SINHA

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :09.01.2020

Date of Decision : 13.01.2020

FIRST APPEAL NO.628/2017

In the matter of:

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Block 4, 7^th Floor,

DLF Tower 15, Shivaji Marg,

New Delhi-110015.                                                                               …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

Karam Singh,

S/o. Late Shri Hari Singh,

R/o. D-1/2 Sector-15,

Rohini, Delhi-110089.                                                                         ………Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

ORDER

1. This order will dispose of  application for  condonation of delay in filing appeal moved by the appellant. The application states that there is delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. Certified copy of the impugned order dated 25.08.17 was received by its counsel on 30.08.17. The appeal should have been filed by 20.09.17. After taking opinion from its counsel, regional office sent file to corporate of office in Pune. The corporate office after taking sanction from the competent authority sent their advices to the regional office. The matter was then referred to counsel for preferring appeal. Counsel took some time in preparing the appeal and the other documents. So the appeal could be filed only on 01.11.17. Delay was only circumstantial, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause delay.
2. The respondent has opposed the application by filing a reply raising preliminary objection that no section of law has been mentioned by the appellant under which application has been moved.  The application is not supported by proper affidavit, neither the age of the deponent is given nor contents of affidavit are affirmed. Affirmation of the supporting affidavit is not administered  as the same is not attested by Oath Commissioner. The appeal was filed much after the time period for which condonation is prayed. Appellant has prayed for  condonation from 29.09.17 to 01.11.17 but appeal has been filed even beyond that.
3. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. It is not necessary to mention the provision of law, by a litigant. None attestation of the affidavit accompanying the application is mere irregularity.
4. The counsel for appellant submitted that he counted delay of 40 days till 01.09.17 whereas the appeal has been filed on 09.11.17. That is how there is a difference in delay sought to be condoned by the appellant and actual delay.
5. The counsel for respondent laid much stress on the fact that court cannot condone delay beyond the period sought to be  condoned by the appellant. According to him delay comes to 50 days instead of 40 days. The arguments have not left any impression on my mind. The law is that it is not the length of delay which is to be seen. Rather it is the sufficiency of reasons which matter. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of Hon’ble SC in (2008) 8 SCC 321.
6. Again the law of condonation of delay is that a party does not stand to gain by delay, no party would allow a sword to hang upon his head just by causing delay for few days.  Courts are respected for their power to do justice and not for their power to punish the parties. In taking this view I am fortified by decision of Hon’ble SC in 167 (2010) DLT 658.
7. In Civil Appeal no.10289/14 titled as ATS Govind Rajne vs. Chief Manager SBI decided on 14.11.14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay should be condoned liberally. Again in Civil Appeal no.5131 on 2019 titled as Hemlata Verma vs. M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance decided on 01.07.19 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the court should take  liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay.
8. In view of the above discussion application is allowed and delay is condoned.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

List for arguments on appeal on 30.04.20.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                      MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•