ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.2213 of 2012
Tata AIA Insurance Company Limited,
(Formerly known as Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.)
14/113, Padam Tower-2, 2nd Floor, Civil Lines,
Kanpur through its Legal Manager,
Sri Rahul Dhanotia …..Appellant.
Versus
Ramesh Dutt Sharma s/o Late B.L. Sharma,
R/o Plot No.5, Bhasin Bhawan, Meerpur Cantt.,
Kanpur-208004 ……..Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri R.C. Chaudhary, Member
None for the applicant.
Sri R.K. Gupta for the respondent.
Date 8.12.2014
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member. The appeal taken up for hearing. None responds on behalf of the appellant. There is no application either. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant is also not present. From perusal of the records, it transpires that he has not taken steps as directed by the Bench on 8.10.2012. Since the appeal is pending for the last 2 years for hearing on the point of admission, therefore, we preferred to go through the records of the case.
(2)
From perusal of the judgment dated 21.1.2012 passed in complaint case no.845 of 2009 by the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Nagar, it transpires that the same was passed on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence available on record and a sum of Rs.11,314.15 was awarded to the respondent. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the respondent/complainant obtained an "Invest Assure Gold Policy" bearing no.U 002904861 on 31.3.2008 after paying the initial premium. There was an option for "free look" period and he was entitled to exercise this option of rejection of the offer within 15 days from the receipt of the policy. He exercised the option within the stipulated period and requested for cancellation of the Policy. He also returned all original documents for follow-up action. The appellant, however, deducted huge amounts illegally towards expenses on over various heads and thereby certainly acted in appropriately amounting to unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this illegal and uncalled for deductions, the respondent/complainant filed the complaint case no.845 of 2009 in which the impugned order was passed on 21.1.2012. Thereafter, on failure of the appellant to pay the decretal amount in time, Execution proceedings bearing no.32 of 2012 were initiated against the Company whereupon the instant appeal was filed on 1.10.2012. Thus, it is prima-facie barred by limitation. An application for condonation of the delay has been moved in which the appellant has not given day to day explanation for the delay. It has not assigned any cogent reason for condonation of the delay under Section 15 of
(3)
the Act 68 of 1986. Thus, in view of the ruling laid down in Anshul Agarwal Vs. NOIDA, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will certainly get frustrated if such belated appeals are entertained. The Forum below took all the facts, evidence and circumstances before passing the impugned order and there is no irregularity or illegality in the same and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the same.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the appeal, being meritless, is dismissed at the admission stage for non-prosecution as well as on ground of limitation. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with the rules.
(A.K. Bose) (R.C. Chaudhary)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri
ST G-1
Court No.5
