By this common order, we shall dispose of both the Revision Petitions since the facts and point of law involved in them are the same.  Facts are being taken from revision petition 3645/2006.

The point involved is that the petitioner insurance company did not settle the claim of the respondent/complainant filed in respect of a Tripeer (heavy Vehicle), which met with an accident on 16.2.2003 in which it was extensively damaged.  The risk cover was from 19.6.2002 to 18.6.2003.  Case was registered with the police and the petitioner was informed about the accident on 17.2.2003 upon which the petitioner appointed a Surveyor.  The respondent filed the claim with the petitioner insurance company, which was not settled.  Thus, being aggrieved respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,67,152/- along with interest @ 6½ % p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment.

-3-

Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission along with an application to condone the delay of             10 months in filing the appeal.  The State Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause and dismissed the application for condonation of delay as a consequence thereof the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

We have gone through the order passed by the State Commission.  The State Commission has recorded detailed reasons for rejecting the explanation furnished by the petitioner for delayed filing of the appeal.  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide speedy and simple disposal of consumer disputes.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the cases have to be decided in a summary manner within a prescribed period.  A complaint is required to be decided within a period of 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken.  The delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission was nearly                                 10 months.  The reason given by the petitioner for delayed filing of the appeal was that the file was moving from table to table.  We

-4-

agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.  Dismissed.