Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/11/761

M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVINDRA SHANKAR SHINDE - Opp.Party(s)

S R SINGH & CO

18 Sep 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/11/761
(Arisen out of Order Dated 04/05/2011 in Case No. CC/10/692 of District Kolhapur)
 
1. M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
D3 AND D4, 2ND FLOOR ROYAL PRESTIGE SAICE EXTENSION SHAHUPURI KOLHAPUR
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. RAVINDRA SHANKAR SHINDE
VANI PETH VADGAON TALUKA HATKANJALE
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:
Mr.S.R. Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
......for the Appellant
 
Mr.Dinkar Patil, Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent.
......for the Respondent
ORDER

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

          Heard Mr.S.R. Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr.Dinkar Patil, Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent.

In filing this appeal by the Insurance Company there is delay of 82 days as mentioned in the delay condonation application by the applicant/appellant for which condonation of delay application has been filed along with affidavit.  However, at the time of hearing with the help of both the Advocates, we calculated the delay and it appears to be 103 days from the date of copy sent by the District Forum. 

There is delay of 103 days in filing appeal, whereas, prayer for condonation of delay is confined to 82 days only.  Even 82 days delay is not properly explained by the applicant/appellant in the condonation of delay application or in the affidavit annexed thereto.  In the circumstances, there is no just and sufficient cause which would prompt us to condone the day of 103 days. 

There are many blanks in Para 2 of the condonation of delay application which are not explained or not filled in by the applicant/appellant while filing appeal.  This is yet another ground why we are not inclined to condone the delay. As such we pass the following order :-

          -: ORDER :-

1.                 Misc. Application No.465/2011 stands rejected.  Consequently, Appeal No.761/2011 does not survive for consideration.

2.                 No order as to costs.

3.                 Amount deposited by the applicant/appellant be directly paid to the respondent/complainant with accrued interest, if any, towards part satisfaction of the award.

4.                 Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

Pronounced

Dated 18th September 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.