Mr.S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

     This is an application filed to condone the delay of 128 days in filing the appeal.  The application is vehemently opposed by the Ld.Counsel appearing for the Respondent/original Complainant.  Looking to the backdrop of the case, it can be seen that when Mr.K.H. Deshpande, a senior citizen of 83 years met with an accident, Complainant Nitin Baburao Kale rushed to his help and took him on the motorcycle to the hospital, but, since Doctor was not available there he had to take said Mr.Deshpande to another hospital belongs to Dr.Kaustuk Kaparekar.  When said patient was required to be rushed inside the hospital for treatment which was urgently required, the motorcycle was hurriedly left in front of the hospital.  Within five minutes when Complainant returned there, he found that his motorcycle was stolen.  In these circumstances insurance claim for total loss was made against insurance policy which stood repudiated on the ground that key was left in the vehicle at the time of theft.  Forum below did not accept such contention of the insurance company and upheld the claim of the Complainant and partly allowing the claim directed Opposite Party to pay `44,000/- as compensation towards loss of vehicle, `3,000/- as compensation towards mental torture and `1,000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the insurance company and since there is delay, along with  appeal, application for condonation of delay is filed.

     The delay is tried to be explained mentioning so called events in a chronological order.   The reason mentioned about the lawyer of the insurance company not parting with the papers to the insurance company to enable it to file the appeal cannot be accepted as sufficient reason.  It is a lame excuse offered since for filing the appeal the copy of impugned order being directly received by the party, i.e. insurance company, they could have filed the appeal within time and, if necessary, they could have reconstructed the record on their own.  Whatever it may be, the reason mentioned is not at all convincing and we are not satisfied with the reasons given.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

  (i)          Misc. Application No.587/2010 filed for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

(ii)          In the result Appeal No.1076/2010 is not entertained.

(iii)          In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.