Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/11/415

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJNIKANT SHANTILAL GANDHI - Opp.Party(s)

H G MISAR

17 Apr 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/11/415
 
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
87 M G ROAD FORT MUMBAI 400001
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
2. TTK HEALTH SERVICES PVT LTD
ANMOL PALNI # 88 L2 G N CHETI ROAD CHENNAI 600017
CHENNAI
TAMILNADU
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. RAJNIKANT SHANTILAL GANDHI
1 GIRIRAJ 201 WALKESHWAR ROAD MUMBAI 400006
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:Adv. H. G. Misar for the Applicants/Appellants
 
Adv. Vipul Shukla for the Non-Applicant/Respondent
 
ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member

 

          Heard Adv. H. G. Misar on behalf of the Applicants/Appellant and Adv. Vipul Shukla on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent on the application for condonation of delay.

 

[2]     In filing an Appeal No.683 of 2011 there is an alleged delay of 37 days on the part of the Applicants/Appellants and to seek condonation of delay the Applicants/Appellants have filed Miscellaneous Application No.415 of 2011.  Application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Bhagavat Bhivo Tonape, Deputy Manager on behalf of the Applicants/Appellants.  In the application for condonation of delay just and sufficient causes has been mentioned as to why the Applicants/Appellants could not file an appeal within the stipulated time.  Primarily delay occurred because as a public sector insurance company for filing an appeal matter is required to be submitted to the higher authorities.  Thereafter higher authorities sought legal opinion and thereafter ‘go ahead’ order has been given to file an appeal.  Thereafter some more time was required to obtain sanction from higher authority to deposit the amount with the State Commission at the time of filing of the appeal as per proviso to Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in the process delay of 37 days occurred in filing this appeal.  In our view delay is properly explained.  Delay is not intentional and no malafides could be attributed on the part of the Applicants/Appellants.  Further, in order to decide the appeal on merit delay needs to be condoned subject to certain costs.

 

          Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

Miscellaneous Application No.415 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.683 of 2011 is hereby allowed.  Consequently, delay in filing appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of `1,500/- to be paid by the Applicants/Appellants to the Non-Applicant/Respondent on or before the next date of hearing and failing which without any further reference to the State Commission the application for condonation of delay automatically stands dismissed.

 

Pronounced and dictated on 17th April, 2012

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.