NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4558/2009

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRI RAMA RAW & PAR BOILED RICE MILL - Opp.Party(s)

MS. NEERJA SACHDEVA

29 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4558 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 28/01/2009 in Appeal No. 1718/2005 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Branch Office, Ravindranath Tagore Road, Machilipatnam ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SRI RAMA RAW & PAR BOILED RICE MILLD.No.4, Peyyeru,Mudinepalli Mandal ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 Jan 2010
ORDER

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.

In this revision filed by the opposite party-insurance company against the order dated 28.1.2009 of A.P. Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, the Registry has reported that there is delay of 222 days in filing petition. In para 3 of the condonation application, the petitioner alleges that delay is of 229 days. In para 2 of condonation application, it is alleged that the petitioner received copy of the said order from the dealing Advocate Sh. Venkata Rao with the covering letter dated 9.9.2009 alongwith case file sometime in middle of September, 2009. Head Office called for the explanation of the Advocate for sending the copy of order so late. Action was initiated to depanel the Advocate from the panel of the Insurance Company. Alongwith revision petition, the petitioner has filed copy of the note of the Deputy Regional Manager in connection with performance appraisal of High Court Advocates. Name of said Shri Venkata Rao appears at serial No. 2 therein. Discussion made in the note would show that Shri Rao was depaneled for mishandling the cases detailed therein. Indisputedly, F.A. No. 1718 of 2005 wherein the order under challenge came to be passed, does not figure in the list of those cases. That being so, we are not inclined to accept the said explanation given by insurance company that explanation was called from Shri Rao and he had been depaneled for sending the copy of the order so late. Obviously, delay upto 9.9.2009 has not been satisfactorily explained. Further delay for which explanation has been given in other paras of condonation application, too have been not satisfactorily explained. Having heard Ms. Sachdeva, we are of the view that insurance company has failed to give sufficient explanation for the delay in filing revision petition. Accordingly, condonation application is dismissed. Revision petition too is dismissed as barred by limitation.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER