RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.2445 of 2013
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., FAI House,
2nd Floor, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067
Through its Manager. ….. Appellant.
Versus
M/s P.K. Proptech (P) Ltd.,
414 A, Naurang House, 21, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001 through its Director,
Sohan Singh. …Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.
Sri A. Mehrotra for the appellant.
Sri R.K. Rajpoot for the respondent.
Date 8.1.2015
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.6.2012, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Gautam Budh Nagar in complaint case No.160 of 2011, the appellant Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, on the basis of surmises and conjunctures only and,
(2)
therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent M/s P.K. Proptech (P) Ltd. filed complaint case no.160 of 2011 before the Ld. DCDRF, Gautam Budh Nagar for redressal of his certain grievances and on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the said complaint was dismissed on 1.6.2012. Surprisingly, the OP Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the instant appeal for setting aside the order which was passed in its favour. The appeal itself is misconceived and unnecessarily been filed for no rhyme or reason as the original complaint no.160 of 2011 was dismissed on merit by the Forum below on 1.6.2012. The complainant/respondent M/s P.K. Proptech (P) Ltd. has preferred an appeal against the impugned order and the appellant can put forward its arguments in the same.
The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the respondent M/s P.K. Proptech (P) Ltd. purchased a second hand Mahindra Scorpio DL 4 CNB 0668 four wheeler from one Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma and the vehicle was transferred in its name on 30.6.2006. However, the insurance stood in the name of the transferor. The vehicle was stolen on the night of 29/30.12.2006 and accordingly, an FIR was lodged and a claim petition was moved before the appellant Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. The claim was repudiated on 2.7.2007. Consequently, complaint case no.160 of 2011
(3)
was filed before the Ld. DCDRF and the same was dismissed on 1.6.2012. Against this order, the respondent/ complainant has filed an appeal bearing no.1670 of 2012 which is pending for disposal. Since the impugned order was passed in favour of the appellant, therefore, we are of the considered view that the instant appeal is misconceived.
Besides this, the impugned judgment and order was passed on 1.6.2012, certified copy of the same was given to the appellant on 6.9.2012 but the instant appeal was filed on 28.10.2013, whereas the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Act, 68 of 1986 is 30 days only. The appellant has not shown any cogent reason nor has given day to day explanation for the delay. Thus, we are not inclined to condone the same. The appeal is liable to be dismissed on this count as well.
ORDER
The appeal, being meritless and barred by limitation, is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with the rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Jugul Kishor)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri
PA II Court No.5
