NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2480/2024

M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT KAMARJUGADDA LAKSHMI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ATUL NIGAM

11 Oct 2024

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2480 OF 2024
(Against the Order dated 14/06/2024 in Appeal No. A/121/2024 of the State Commission Telangana)
1. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THROUGH MR. ROHAN MISHRA, LEGAL MANAGER, FOURTH FLOOR, RED FORT CAPITAL, PARASWVNATH TOWERS, BHAI VEER SINGH MARG, GOLE MARKET, NEW DELHI
NEW DELHI
DELHI
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SMT KAMARJUGADDA LAKSHMI
SMT. KAMARJUGADDA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE K. PRAKASH, R/O. FLAT NO. S-1, H. NO. 11-87/1/201, PLOT NO. 49, SAI SNEHA ENCLAVE, ROAD NO. 2, TELEPHONE COLONY, KOTHAPET, GHMC, RANGA REDDY, HYDERABAD
RANGA REDDY
TELANGANA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER :
MR. ATUL NIGAM, ADVOCATE
MS. TANVI NIGAM, ADVOCATE

Dated : 11 October 2024
ORDER

1.       Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.       The challenge is to the order dated 18.06.2024 of the State Commission Telangana in FA No. 121 of 2024 read with order dated 18.06.2014 in FAIA No. 273 of 2024 in FA No. 121 of 2024.

3.       The said FA has been dismissed by the State Commission on account of limitation having been filed with  a delay of 54 days.   The condonation of delay application filed vide FAIA No. 273 of 2024 before the State Commission was dismissed as State Commission did not find the reason for delay / grounds being sufficient.

4.       In the said FAIA No. 273 of 2024, the Petitioner herein stated as follows:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore  prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may condone the delay of 54 days in preferring the appeal against the order of the District Commission  - Ranga Reddy dated 04.08.2023 passed in CC 375/2021 in the interest of justice.

 

5.       This application was accompanied by an affidavit of the official of the Petitioner – Insurance Company which states the reasons for the delay. The period of delay in filing the appeal before the State  Commission is not in dispute.  The reasons for delay stated in the said affidavit are reproduced below :

“I further submit that our Head Office after receipt of the file referred it to their panel advocate for a second opinion on 04.09.2023 and after receiving the opinion copy on 14.09.2023 informed us to prefer appeal and instructed their accounts Dept to obtain DD for the statutory amount.

I further submit that our Head office informed us that the Accounts Dept. was facing technical issue in obtaining DD for the statutory amount and the technical dept was on the job to solve the issue. The Technical Dept after putting in persistent efforts could solve the technical issue and our accounts Dept obtained the DD on 23.11.2023 and dispatched to us on the same day, which we received on 25.11.2023. We contacted our counsel and handed over the papers on 25.11.2023 for appeal. Our counsel prepared the grounds and stay petition and sent to us for approval on 27.11.2023. Due to the aforesaid bonafide reasons we could not prefer appeal within time as such there was a delay of 54 days in preferring appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton.”

 

6.       We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission in the said FA as well as IA, reasons for delay stated above and other relevant records and contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner during the hearing.

7.       Although we do not find the reasons for delay stated in the said affidavit convincing and do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission in dismissing the condonation of delay application and consequently the Appeal, we are of the considered view and in the interest of justice, delay of 54 days in filing the Appeal before the State Commission can be condoned.  Accordingly, we allow the revision petition, condone the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both sides.  However, it is subject to following conditions :

a.       Requisite statutory deposit for filing the appeal shall be made before the State Commission within 2 weeks from today.

b.       Petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent herein i.e. complainant to take care of her miscellaneous / travel expenses with regard to the litigation before the State Commission. This amount shall be deposited before the State Commission and will be paid to the complainant on their first appearance before the State Commission either in person or through an authorized representative / counsel.

c.       On deposit of the statutory amount and Rs.10,000/-as stated above, State Commission will issue notice to other side and take up the matter on merits. 

8.       Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly.

9.       Order be given Dasti in addition.

 
................................................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
PRESIDING 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.