Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard, with the consent of both the parties, Adv. Uday B. Wavikar for the Appellant/original Complainant and Adv. Sapna Bhuptany for the Respondent/ original Opponent finally at the stage of admission.
[2] Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2010 was filed by the Appellant/original Complainant before the Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘the Forum’ in short), alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/original Opponent Insurance Company for arbitrarily repudiating the insurance claim pertaining to the accident of the truck which had taken place on 2/11/2006. Said claim initially stood repudiated on 2/4/2007 on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the truck did not possess valid, effective and legal driving license. It is further alleged by the Appellant/original Complainant that thereafter she collected the requisite information from the Regional Transport Office about the validity of the license of the truck driver and resubmitted the papers. The Respondent/ original Opponent Insurance Company again repudiated the claim confirming its earlier repudiation, by a letter dated 17/11/2009. Thereafter, consumer complaint was filed on 5/4/2010 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. Said application stood dismissed by the Forum and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Appellant/original Complainant.
[3] The grounds on which delay is sought to be condoned is that after the first repudiation, the Appellant/original Complainant approached the Respondent/original Opponent Insurance Company on & often and the concerned officials assured her that after resubmitting the proper documents claim would be finalized; she thereafter collected necessary information from Regional Transport Office and submitted those papers but, the Respondent/Opponent Insurance Company reaffirmed the repudiation on 17/11/2009; thereafter she met many people to take advice; she was also in a financial difficulty and under depression and thus, the delay in filing consumer complaint occurred.
[4] The Forum simply observed that the reasons mentioned for condonation of delay are not sufficient to condone the delay and dismissed the application.
[5] We are aware of the decision of the apex court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ~ III-(2009)-CPJ-75-(SC), which lays down the cause of action arose on the date of accident viz. 2/11/2006. However, in the given circumstances, the Appellant/original Complainant who is a lady did not sit idle while processing the insurance claim. After the claimed was lodged, the same stood repudiated on 2/4/2007 and thereafter, she again approached the Respondent/original Opponent Insurance Company. Her case which remains un-contradicted is that the concerned official of the Respondent/original Opponent Insurance Company promised her to look into the matter again on supply of certain more documents and under the assurance she collected requisite information from Regional Transport Office and resubmitted the papers and ultimately, the claim again stood repudiated on 17/11/2009. Thereafter, consumer complaint was filed on 5/4/2010. If we look into totality of circumstances, it appears that the claim was prosecuted diligently but certainly for the reasons mentioned, the delay occurred from time to time. No malafides or bad intentions could be attributed to the Appellant/original Complainant. Total length of period is immaterial in the background of the present circumstances. What is important to be noted is the conduct on the part of the Appellant/original Complainant dealing with the matter to which we have made reference earlier. Even after repudiation, the Appellant/original Complainant was first shown a ray of hope of reconsideration of the claim on submission of papers. She did collect the information which perhaps disclosed that ground of repudiation was not valid and thereafter, when finally the claim was again repudiated, information of the earlier repudiation was communicated and thereafter, the Appellant/original Complainant took steps for filing a consumer complaint. In this background, to do substantial justice we find it appropriate to condone the delay holding that delay is satisfactorily explained. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. Delay in filing Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2010 hereby stands condoned.
3. Complaint is remitted back to the Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to have a de novo trial in the consumer complaint from the stage of admission.
4. Parties to the complaint proceeding shall appear before the District Forum on 14/Nov/2011.
5. No order as to costs.
Pronounced & dictated on 4th October, 2011.
