HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Order No: 03
Date : 23.09.2024
The factual matrix of the CC/26/2019, filed U/Sec. 12 of C.P. Act 1986 by the complainant of the said CC/26/2019 rescal that over the issue of theft of the JCB 3DX 2 WD loader with registration No. JH 16B/8693 on 02.10.2018 at 6.30 am belonging to the complainant of CC/26/2019, Halim SK. Who had purchased the said JCB with the financial assistance of the Magma Fincrop and kept it hypothecated with Magma Fincrop Ltd. and got that JCB covered by the insurance policy of the Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., the complainant of CC/26/2019, Halim Sk. being owner of the said JCB, had filed CC/26/2019 against Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., on the ground of it’s repudiating the claim of the complainant in respect of his purchased insurance policy for his owned JCB, vide repudiation dated 29.12.2019 and communicated to Halim Sk. i.e. complainant of CC/26/2019 on 05.01.2019.
It appears from the Xeroxed copy of the record of CC/26/2019 that on 12.12.2022, during the continuation of the proceedings of CC/26/2019, before the Ld. Concerned DCDRC, Birbhum (Suri), the said Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum vide Order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022, dismissed the CC/26/2019 for default since on that date, in connection with CC/26/2019, the complainant of CC/29/2019, the complainant of CC/26/2019 had not filed show cause from his end in CC/26/2019, as directed by the concerned Ld. Commission, Birbhum in connection with CC/26/2019 and instead of filing show cause, prayed for an adjournment by filing a petition that was subsequently not pressed or moved, on being repeatedly called, during the hearing of CC/26/2019 before the concerned Commission resulting in rejection of the prayer of adjournment petition of the complainant of CC/26/2019, Halim Sk.
The case record reveals that against that order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022, the complainant of CC/26/2019 Halim Sk. preferred Appeal No. 3 dated 20.01.2023, before this Commission at Asansol, by filing M.O.A. on following required procedures needed for filing Appeal against the Order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022, passed in CC/26/2019 by the Ld. Concerned DCDRC at Birbhum (Suri).
It further transpires from the available materials on record that during the course of proceeding of Appeal A/03/2023 before this Commission, the Appellant of A/03/2023 i.e. the complainant of CC/26/2019, Halim Sk. filed this IA/82/2024 on 02.06.2024 seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal A/3/2023 on 20.01.2023 against the order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022 passed in CC/26/2019 by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum (Suri).
It is forthcoming from the available materials on record that by submitting this IA/82/2024, the appellant/applicant/complainant Halim Sk. contended that since his retained Ld. Counsel for moving this Appeal (A/3/2023) before this Commission Sri Arup Karmakar passed away by meeting a road traffic accident, so the Applicant/Appellant/complainant Halim Sk sustained delay in proceeding with the Appeal A/3/2023 and later on procuring the certified copy of the orders of CC/26/2019, filed the instant Appeal and later pressed this IA on 02.06.2024 seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal 03/2023 dated 20.01.2023 before this Commission for positive consideration of his prayer reflected in the present IA dated 02.06.2024.
Point for consideration
Now it is to be determined as to whether this IA (IA/82/2024 dated 02.06.2024) filed for seeking condonation of delay in filing/preferring his Appeal (A/3/2023 dated 20.01.2023) against the impugned order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022 passed in CC/26/2019 deserves positive consideration or not.
Decision with reasons
It appears from the available materials on record that the Appeal 03/2023 dated 20.01.2023 was preferred by the complainant of CC/26/2019, Halim Sk. against the order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022 passed in CC/26/2019 filed as per scopes of Sec. 12 of C.P. Act of 1986.
As per Sec. 15 of the C.P. Act of 1986, the stipulated time fixed for preferring Appeal against any judgement/final order passed in any complaint case, so filed as per scopes of Sec. 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 by the Ld. DCDRC is 30 (thirty) days from the date of order that is going to be assailed before the Ld. SCDRC obviously this statutory time stipulation, so determined to prefer Appeal has certain latitude depending on the satisfaction of the Ld. SCDRC on assignment of reasons for such delay in preferring Appeal Against the impugned order of the Ld. DCDRC.
Here in this case, the impugned order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Ld. DCDRC in CC/26/2019 has been assailed by the Applicant/complainant of CC/26/201, Halim Sk. before this Commission by preferring A/3/2023 on 20.01.2023.
It appears that 02 (two) days were spent to procure the certified copy of the impugned order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022, passed in CC/26/2019.
It further reveals that instead of filing this Case on 11.01.2023, this Appeal was preferred on 20.01.2023 here in this Commission at Asansol, committing a delay of 02 days (required for procuring certified copy of the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 of CC/26/2019) = 06 days in total.
The Applicant/Appellant/complainant Halim Sk. justified this delay of clear 06 days on his part by assigning the reason that his retained to Ld. Counsel Arup Karmkar had sudden unfortunate death followed by RTA.
The Ld. Counsel for the OP/Respondent side of Appeal No. 03/2023 has contended categorically that this IA has been filed on 02.06.2024 long after the preferring the Appeal No. 03/2023 dated 20.01.2023 before this Forum and for this grave reason, this IA should not be entertained and the OP side vehemently opposed the positive consideration of this IA by this Commission.
It appears that the condonation of delay has been sought for against the delay of 06 (six) days in preferring the Appeal No. 03/2023 filed on 20.01.2023, assailing the impugned order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022 passed in CC/26/2019 and no condonation of delay is prayed for in filing this IA/82/2024 dated 02.06.2024 praying for condonation of delay in preferring A/03/2023.
There appears reasonable ground to hold that there was delay of only six days in preferring the Appeal from the statutorily stipulated period for preferring Appeal before this Commission against the impugned order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRC in CC/26/2019 and the reason assigned for such delay is the sudden accidental death of the retained lawyer of the Appellant sctreduled to prefer this Appeal on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant against the impugned order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022 passed in CC/26/2019 by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum (Suri). This assigned reason remained unchallenged and practically admitted by the contesting OPs of this IA.
In the premises, I find that the delay in preferring Appeal 03 of 2023 dated 20.01.2023 against the impugned order No. 26 dated 12.12.2022 passed in CC/26/2019 by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum has been satisfactorily explained by the Appellant/Applicant of A/03/2023, Halim Sk. and the cause shown by him for the delay does not lack bonafide. Subsequential justice being paramount and pivotal the technical consideration should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
In the light of the above discussion and findings, this IA (IA/82/2024) deserves positive consideration, as I feel and hold.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That that IA/82/2024 dated 02.06.2024, seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal 03/2023 dated 20.01.2023 before this fora /commission at Asansol, is allowed on contest, without cost.
Accordingly, 02.12.2024, fixed for hearing of Appeal 03/2023 dated 20.01.2023 preferred by Halim Sk. against both the OPs of this IA and A/03/2023 as well.
All the contesting parties of this IA and A/03/2023 must come ready on the date fixed for hearing of A/03/2023.
Let certified copies of this order be furnished free of cost forthwith to the contesting parties of this IA as per scopes of relevant provisions of C.P. Act, its relevant rules and regulations, as amended time to time uptil now.
