Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/12/184

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., - Complainant(s)

Versus

VILAS MADHUKAR DESALE, - Opp.Party(s)

NIKHIL MEHTA

04 Mar 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/12/184
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/11/2011 in Case No. 126/2008 of District Nashik)
 
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CORPORATE OFFICE 4 TH FLOOR PENNINSULA BUILDING OPPOSITE LAWRENCE & MAYO BUILDING FORT MUMBAI 400001 THROUGH ITS LEGAL MANAGER MR KAMALJEET KAMBLE
MUMBAI
MAHARAHSTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. VILAS MADHUKAR DESALE,
11PINGALE COMPLEX SHARANPUR ROAD NASHIK MAHARASHTRA
NASHIK
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Adv.Rahul Mehta
......for the Appellant
 
Adv.N.H.Lahoti
......for the Respondent
ORDER

(Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Presiding Member)

 

(1)               On the delay condonation application, we heard counsels for both the parties.  Adv.Mehta for the applicant/appellant tried to justify the reasons of 60 days’ delay in para No.4 of the delay condonation application.  The order in appeal is passed on 29/11/2011 and certified copy was taken by the advocate of the appellant in District Forum.  So, the appellant was aware of the order and was having certified copy of the impugned order.  Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to convince us that the delay has occurred in various procedures and contended that the delay is procedural.  More particularly, after receipt of copy of the impugned order, the same was reviewed by the Legal Manager of the appellant and who found that the impugned judgement & order was false and frivolous on the face of it.  In the affidavit filed, the reasons for the delay and its explanation is not given. 

 

(2)     Advocate for the respondent vehemently objected to the delay condonation application.  The learned advocate for the respondent has placed 2 authorities of Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2011) CPJ 155 and II (2012) CPJ 482 (NC).  It is observed that there is no explanation whatsoever why this process took so long except that the application further stated, “……..” This is enough to demonstrate that there was no reason for this delay, much less a ‘sufficient cause’ to warrant its condonation, as mandated in Sec.24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Both the authorities presented by the learned counsel for the respondent are relevant in the case before us.  Delay is not properly explained.  Hence, we reject the delay condonation application bearing No.MA/12/112.  In the result, the appeal No.A/12/184 does not survive for consideration. 

 

(3)               The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant prayed that the amount deposited may not be disbursed till the period of filing revision is over.  The prayer is granted. 

 

Pronounced on 4th March, 2013.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde]
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.