Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          These revision petitions are directed against the impugned orders as referred in the cause title, allowing the application for condonation of delay in respective matters.  Original Opponent, namely – I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the insurance company’ for the sake of brevity), challenged those orders by way of these revision petitions.  Since these revision petitions involve almost identical circumstances and common question of law, these revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

[2]     For the sake of clarity, we hereby tabularize the relevant information in relation to each revision petition as under:-

[3]     Heard both the learned counsels, Adv. Mehta on behalf of the Revision Petitioners and Adv. Uday B. Wavikar for the Respondents, at length.  At the end of arguments, both the parties filed a joint pursis kept in R. P. No.11/18 conceding that the impugned order needs to be set aside since in effect, it is an unreasoned order and the matter be remanded back to the Forum for fresh hearing of the delay condonation application and deciding the same on merits according to law.

[4]     In these cases, the insurance claim arose under the Farmers’ Policy taken by the Government of Maharashtra.  In view of the decision of the apex court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ~ III-(2009)-CPJ-75-(SC), the cause of action arose on the date of event of death of respective farmer in each consumer complaint.  It is not a continuous cause of action and repudiation or no repudiation of the insurance claim has nothing to do with it.  Reasons mentioned to condone the delay are to be considered on their own merits in the light of the settled law covering the issue of condonation of delay.  Delay cannot be condoned on moral grounds since lapse of limitation period vests a right in favour of the other party and in that sense, provision relation to limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not merely procedural in nature but, is a substantive provision of law.  In the impugned order, the reasons given are neither properly appreciated nor considered after calculating the actual delay and thus, in effect, it is an unreasoned order.  Therefore, what ultimately submitted by both the parties as per their joint pursis and request for remand of the matter for de-novo consideration of the application for condonation of delay appears to be proper & justified and accepting the same would serve purpose of justice.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

ORDER

Revision petitions are hereby allowed.

Impugned orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in respective Miscellaneous Applications are hereby set aside and the Forum is directed to reconsider the applications for condonation of delay on their own merit after given an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on affidavit and hearing them, according to law.

In the given circumstances, both the parties to each revision to bear their own costs.

Pronounced on 13^th October, 2011