ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY COMPLAINANT.  (Dated:04/01/2019) 

1. The applicant By this application  prayed to condone the delay of about 79 days  which occurred in filing of the complaint.

2. It is submitted by applicant that, The applicant is the policy holder of the mediclaim insurance policy offer by the opposite party number 1 since 2012 -2013 which was renewed till date the policy was for 3 family members including complaint. In the year 2017 the complainant had undergo the angiography and angioplasty surgery for the total expenses incurred was 4,37,428/- Insurance claim for reimbursement of medical expenses made to the opposite party but on dated 6/7 /2017 the opposite party partially rejected the claim and allowed only the sum of rupees 2,15,213/-

3. On complainant requested for re-evaluation of  the claim. the opposite party  stating reason for non payment of remaining amount sent letter to the complainant on 16/10/2017.The complaint stated that he was continuously travelling for the purpose of business exclusively out of Maharashtra and within Maharashtra in the month of October 2019,  after that the complainant had to travel for the period of 25/ 10 /2019 to 5/11 /2019 to native place at Gujarat for the annual religious prayer along with his family members and came back from his native place on 5/11/2019 the complainant had to attend numerous weddings in and out of Mumbai of  family members and relatives.

4. It is submitted by him that due to the aforementioned reason  he was not able to file a complaint within prescribed period of limitation. Hence  There was sufficient caused for not filing the complaint within limitation and hence the delay be condoned. 

5. The application has been opposed by opposite party by filing say. 

a)Applicant fails to explain the delay of 79 days and as regard how the same has been quantified.

b) the cause of action arose on 17 /10 /2019 the complainant has failed to show how the same arose when the full and final settlement of the claim was done on 6/ 7 /2017 and the said application with complaint filed on 4/1 /2020 when complainant ought to have been file by  05/07/2019 therefore there is delay nearly 3 years.

c) The complainant has explained the delay after the expiration of 2 years but there is no explanation as to what deprived him from filing the consumer complaint within the 2 year period as the two year period granted by the legislation was not to be wasted

d)The complainant had given priority to social commitments and has procrastinated to filing of the Consumer complaint. Attending annual regional prayers at Gujarat not a ground to deprive the Complainant from filing his grievance. According to the opposite party there existed no sufficient cause for not filing the complaint by complainant within limitation and hence application deserves to be rejected. 

6. Heard Ld. Advocate for the parties. The Ld.advocate for applicant relied on a judgment  BHAG SINGH AND ORS. V/S MAJOR DALJIT SINGH AND ORS. DATED 25/02/1987. Also relied on WRIT PETITION NO.8045 OF 2023. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and transport through its general manager versus based jagrut Kamgar sanghatana through Parivartan and others.The Ld. Advocate for opposite party also relied on  judgment of Honorable National consumer dispute redressal Commission Revision petition number141/2001. New India Assurance Company Limited versus Satish Khanna and others.Rivision petition number 3806 of 2012 Shishir Basak versus Pradeep Kumar Saha and others. Revision petition number 3592 of 2012 Haryana state Federation of consumers cooperative wholesale stores Limited and others versus khemchand. Ma no 33/2022 and CC no.90/2015 of district consumer disputed redressal Commission South Mumbai. 

7. In the light of arguments advanced on behalf of the parties following points arise for consideration. We recorded our

findings  thereon for the reasons stated  below.

1) Is it proved by complainant that there exists sufficient caused to condone the delay?......In positive.

2) whether the delay is liable to be condone?......In Nagative.

3)What order?.....Application stand rejected.

AS PER POINT NO-1 TO 3: 

8. The complainant with his complaint has filed at Exhibit-M is a settlement of claim dated 6/7/ 2017 by which opposite party has granted amount of rupees 2,22,215/- and disallowed rupees 2,15,213/- afterwards the complainant  requested for the balance Insurance claim. The opposite party as per letter dated 16 /10/ 2017 stated reason for disallowed balance amount which is at Exhibit-P. It is observed that in this matter the issue is regarding balance Insurance claim which was denied by the opposite party and the reason for that explained with letter dated 16/10 /2017. Therefore we are on the view that  to file this complaint the cause of action arised on 16/10 /2017.
9. As per abovesaid cause of action and as per statutory period of limitation complaint had to file within 2 year i.e. till 15/10/2019 but the complaint has filed on 04/01/2020 As per settled provision of law and the provision of  CPA act that, 2 year Period from the cause of action is prescribed period of limitation which must not be vested. In this case it is fact on record that the complaint has not filed within 2 years.

10. The complainant in his complaint as well as in this application has not stated any reason for not filing this case within 2 year from the date of cause of action. the complainant has filed evidence for delay of 79 days as per that he was out of station. as per our view that attending function and travelling was not important more than filing of this case for his right and getting justice. therefore the reason stated by the complainant for condonation of delay cannot be considered.

11. From the abovesaid observation we are on the opinion that the reason given by the complainant  cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for not filing a complaint  within prescribed period of limitation. And as considering delay for filing this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore,  Upon considering the material on record and from observation, and view of commission,  We reached to the conclusion that the applicant failed to show sufficient caused for condoning the delay. There was no sufficient Cause for not  filing complaint by complainant Within prescribed period of limitation and hence delay cannot be condoned,  In this circumstances the application deserves to be rejected.  With this we record our finding on point Nos.1  in negative and pass the following order.  

                                         FINAL ORDER

1. Application for Condonation of delay stands rejected.  Hence consumer complaint  no.01/2020 hereby disposed off.
2. Parties to bear their own cost.
3.  The copy of order be sent to both parties free of cost.