Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

MA/21/35

Smt. Veena Vimbhu Sunil Meshram - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHAYKUMAR N. JADHAV

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/21/35
( Date of Filing : 11 Oct 2021 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/21/300
 
1. Smt. Veena Vimbhu Sunil Meshram
R/o. Talegaon, Tal-Kurkheda, Dist- Gadchiroli
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Manager City Tower, 2nd Floor, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Next to Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012.
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 21 Oct 2022
Final Order / Judgement

         Per M.P.Kasar Member                       

  1. Complainant states that, complainants husband accidently died on 25/09/2014 so complainant filed claim form with required documents to the Talathi is within time but according to the complainant opposite party not sanctioned complainants claim and kept pending. Complainant is women and illiterate women and do not posses legal knowledge hence delay caused to file present complaint so in the interest of justice delay of 05 years  17days may be condoned.
  2. Opposite party filed say stating in that, complainant failed to substantiate reason for her failure to approach this commission and complainant failed to file dispute regarding repudiation before the District Control Committee so this Commission has no jurisdiction & complainant is not agriculturist.  It is stated that claim was repudiated and informed letter dated 15/09/2014     and case is filed in Nov.2021 so delay is also of more than 05 years.   Thus according to the opposite party delay has not been explained each and every day by the complainant so present application be dismissed with cost.
  3. Heard Advocate of the parties, perused application and reply.  To decide application on merit we frame issues as follows :-

   No

Issues

 Findings

  1.  

Whether delay is condonable?

Yes

  1.  

What an Order?

As per order passed

 

As to Issue No.1 & 2:- No dispute regarding death of complainants husband also no dispute in regard deceased was farmer and complainant is hair of deceased and is also farmer. No dispute in regard complainant is illiterate women and also no dispute in regard complainant have no knowledge of legal proceeding. Also no dispute in regard complainant is covered by Farmers Accidental Insurance Policy. Perused judgement passed by Hon’ble State Commission inFirst Appeal No.FA 15/623 vide dated 03/04/2018  Smt.Kamalavati Suryakant Rane v/s National Insurance Company and otrs.  Considering issues related to insurance claim not get to complainant. and issues raised by the opposite party can be decide on meritso delay caused to file present complaint we are of the opinion that, is condonable in viewof circumstances of complainant & principle of natural justice we pass order as:

         ORDER

Misc.Application No.21/35for delay condonation filed by the complainant is hereby allowed below section 69 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and delay of 05 years 17 days is hereby condoned in the interest of justice and no order as to cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR]
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.