THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 03^rd DAY OF JULY, 2023

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

APPEAL NO.1023/2023

Cholamandalam MS General

Insurance Co. Ltd,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,                            …Appellant/s

Unit No.4, 9^th Floor, Level 6,

Golden Heights Complex,

59^th “C” Cross, 4^th “M” Block,

Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010

(By Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R, Advocates)

V/s

1.      Sowmya W/o late Srinath,

          Aged about 31 years,

          Occ: House hold work

… Respondent/s

2.      Daksha S/o late Srinath,

          Aged about 08 years,

          Occ: House hold work

3.      Rakshith S/o late Srinath,

          Aged about 04 years,

                                                              … Respondent/s

          Respondent No.2 and 3/

Complainant no.2 and 3 are

Minors, Represented by their

Guardian mother

Respondent no.1/complainant no.1

4.      Krishnappa S/o Kariyappa

          Aged about 67 years,

5.      Veeramma w/o Krishnappa

          Aged about 61 years,

          House hold work

          All are residents of Vinobha Nagar,

          3^rd Main, 14^th Cross, Davanagere-577 022

ORDER ON ADMISSION

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Opposite Party/appellant in complaint No.146/2022 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Chitradurga on IA filed this appellant to seeking permission to file version and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Consumer alleging deficiency in service. After admitting the complaint, the notice was issued to this appellant/respondent the head office situated at Pune, after receiving the said notice, the head office has sent the said notice along with copy of the complaint to the policy issuing branch office situated at Bengaluru. Accordingly the Bengaluru office obtaining the ascertained the policy issuing office is being at Hubballi and the same was forwarded to the Hubballi to take necessary steps. Subsequently on 24-11-2022 they were placed exparte. Thereafterwards, this appellant came up with an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the order of exparte and permit them to file version. On 9-12-2022 the order of exparte was set aside, but refused to take the version as version was barred by time. In fact, there is no any deliberate intention for not appearing before the District Commission and not filing the version. They have got good case to take defence; the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. Hence prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and permit them to file version and contest the matter, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Further the advocate for appellant filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 134 days in filing this appeal and sworn affidavit that after passing an order dated 16-12-2022, they have applied for certified copy of the same and obtained on 16-12-2022, there afterwards the said rejection was intimated to the head office and to prefer this appeal, they have obtained an approval from the concerned higher authority so as to challenge the order dated 16-12-2022. After obtaining instructions, the counsel for appellant has forwarded the certified copy of the order. After obtaining the said approval, the entire appeal file was forwarded to advocate at Bengaluru during the third week of January, 2023 with instructions to file appeal and the same was received on 09-12-2022. After receiving the said instructions,  due to Christmas vacation and our dealing advocate being out of the town was not available as on January 2023, there afterwards in the month of Jan.2023, they have forwarded the appeal memorandum along with IA for condonation of delay for kind approval and execution as per mail dated 27-5-2023. Immediately on appreciation of the same, they have filed this appeal along with condonation of delay, there is delay of 134 days due to administrative reasons and the delay is only for bonafide reasons and not intentional. Hence prays for condone the delay, in the interest of justice and equity.  

3. Heard on both IA and appeal memo.

4. We noticed that there is a delay of 134 days in filing this appeal; the reasons sworn in affidavit are not satisfactory. Mere administrative delay is not justifiable reasons to condone the delay. The appellant has to establish that he could not file the appeal well within time due to unavoidable circumstances. In this appeal we do not find any such unavoidable reasons for not filing the appeal well within time. The reasons assigned in the affidavit are only an administrative delay; the appellant authority should have consider the matter after obtaining the certified copy speedily well within time to prefer this appeal, the delay on the part of the appellant himself are not justifiable. Hence the appeal is dismissed as barred by time, we do not find any valid reasons to appreciate the merit. As such the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-  

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

Member                                                      Judicial Member

Jrk/-