KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. No. 1379/2023 in APPEAL No. 703/2023

ORDER DATED: 26.03.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 141/2017 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

1. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Head Office, 24 Whites S Road, Chennai-600 014 represented by its Managing Director.

2. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Kizhakkedathu Building, Main Road, Pathanamthitta, represented by its Manager. 

(By Adv. Lakshmanan T.J.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Valsala Kumar, Kuruttukunnil Arunalayam, Oonnukal P.O., Chennerkkara.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER                        

This is an application filed by the opposite parties in C.C. No. 141/2017 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (District Commission for short).  The District Commission as per the order dated 24.12.2021 had allowed the complaint.  The petitioners/opposite parties received the copy of the order on 04.05.2022 and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 18.06.2022.  After receiving the order the entire file was sent to the policy issuing office at Pathanamthitta and thereafter to the Regional Office at Kochi.  In the meantime, the original order of the District Commission was misplaced in the Regional Office.  But it could be traced out only on 15.09.2023 and thereafter the company had taken a decision to prefer an appeal.  The entire file was entrusted with the lawyer on 29.09.2023.  After the preparation of the appeal memorandum it was sent to the company for approval and ultimately the appeal was filed on 20.10.2023.  Thus there occurred a delay of 489 days in preferring the appeal.  There was no willful negligence on the part of the petitioners.  Hence the delay is sought to be condoned.

2.  The respondent has entered appearance and filed objections on the following grounds:

The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  No satisfactory reason is forthcoming in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of the inordinate delay of 489 days.  The vague assertion that the order was misplaced and other administrative reasons cannot be deemed as a valid reason for the inordinate delay of 489 days.  The respondent is a senior citizen who had in fact thought for filing an appeal against the quantum of compensation ordered by the District Commission.  But he did not file an appeal believing the words of the appellant that the matter would be settled.  But later this appeal has been filed with this application for condonation of delay.

3.  Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition.  The delay occurred is 489 days.  The explanation offered is a stereo type one that the order was misplaced and the file was held up in the administrative office of the petitioners.  Administrative reason can never be stated as a valid ground to condone the inordinate delay of 489 days. When an adverse order is passed against the company it is the responsibility of the officials of the company to do the remedial measures and file an appeal within the time limit.  The explanation offered by the petitioner does not appear to be true and correct.  There is merit in the stand taken by the respondent/complainant that this is a calculated attempt on the part of the petitioners to protract the proceedings.  We find no merit in the facts sworn in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.  Since the reason stated by the petitioner does not impress as true and correct we are disinclined to allow the request. 

In the result, the petition is dismissed.  

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                 AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                                           RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 703/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 26.03.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 141/2017 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Head Office, 24 Whites S Road, Chennai-600 014 represented by its Managing Director.

2. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Kizhakkedathu Building, Main Road, Pathanamthitta, represented by its Manager. 

(By Adv. Lakshmanan T.J.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Valsala Kumar, Kuruttukunnil Arunalayam, Oonnukal P.O., Chennerkkara.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER                        

The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed.  The petition filed as I.A. No. 1379/2023 for the condonation of delay stands dismissed.  So the appeal is also dismissed.

The statutory deposit made by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal is ordered to be refunded on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                              AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                                         RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER