State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Ishwari Nanikram Kishnani on 10 March, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.1312 OF 2009 Date of filing: 29/10/2009 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.103/2005 Date of order : 10/03/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOUTH MUMBAI@ MISC.APPLICATION NO.1661/2009 (Delay) The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Regional office at State Bank Building 3rd floor, Bank Street Fort, Mumbai 400 023 Appellant/org.O.P. v/s. Smt.Ishwari Nanikram Kishnani Represented by her son and C.A. Prithviraj N.Kishnani 17/5, Krishna Kunj, R.A.Kidwai Road Wadala, Mumbai 400 031 .Respondent/org.complainant Quorum : Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Honble President Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member
Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member Present:
Mr.Dinesh Sharma-Advocate I/b. Mr.D.B.Gupta - Advocate for the appellant Ms.Rashmi Manne-Advocate @ Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the respondent : ORAL ORDER:
Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Honble President Heard both the sides. This is a delay condonation application to condone the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal. Ld.counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that actually there is delay of 60 days. However, 90 days has been calculated from the date of the order. Ld.counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that actually delay is of 90 days and not of 60 days. Let the fact as it is. Without entering into this aspect, we find that delay in the present matter is being sought to be condoned on administrative grounds.
The Appellant (original opposite party) state that delay occurred in filing the present appeal was as also due to the reason that the appellant (original opposite party) being public sector company/undertaking requisite consultations are to be held higher authorities and due to the said consultations delay occurred in filing of appeal. Some time was found necessary at every stage to scrutinize and examine the papers and the entire magnanimous proceedings thoroughly with the bonafide intention of arriving at the best alternative available in the circumstances prevailing at that material period of time as also consultations were held with various authorities including advocates to explore the possibility of honoring the verdict of the Honble trial court, but since the viability went against the honoring of the verdict the present appeal was preferred and filed as last recourse available to avoid any departmental scrutiny to that extent of oversight or undue favoritism or haste in abiding with the impugned judgement.
Thus the appellant is claiming that delay has been caused because the appellant is a public sector undertaking namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. What we find after going through the above referred paragraph, that the delay should have been explained properly, namely applicant should have given particulars of the dates and the time taken by each of the officer of the appellant to take decision in the matter of filing an appeal. Therefore, we desired to place on record movement of the file till decision is taken in the office of the appellant to file an appeal. We also desired to know how much time is taken by the advocate to draft appeal and file in this Commission. Since we have noted that above referred para does not contain the particulars as required under the law so that we can come to the conclusion that the delay has been caused for sufficient reasons and, therefore, matter was adjourned and the time was granted on 22/1/2010 to file an affidavit. Accordingly, affidavit has been filed by the applicant/appellant and the following two paragraphs namely para nos.2 & 3 are relevant. They are as follows:-
I say that the impugned order and judgement has been passed on 31/7/2009. The appellant has applied for the certified copy and the same has been furnished to them on 24/8/2009.
I say that however thereafter the appeal could be filed only on 29/10/2009 and as such delay of about 90 days occurred. The appellant submits that however the said delay was not deliberate/intentional and occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and submit that delay occurred in filing the present appeal be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
After going through these paragraphs in the affidavit we find that particulars of the movement of the file in decision making process are completely absent. On the contrary, what is the practice of the State Commission which was not part of the earlier application has been stated in the affidavit. That is devoid of any merits. After going through this application and the affidavit and the opportunity offered to the appellant/applicant we are completely satisfied that the applicant/appellant are not possessed of any details in respect of processing of the said file. Averments made in the application that file moved from the office to office and officer to officer is only for the purpose of making any ground without their being any support from the record. Had there being any record to show dates of moving file and making endorsement by officers which shows diligence on the part of officers of appellant, the appellant would have produced such record and would have placed in the affidavit such material. But as observed by us, there is no such record with appellant. The appellant thus has placed a ground for condonation of delay which is fictitious one. It is an invented ground without record to that effect. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that administrative delay is not a factual ground existing when the matter was filed. Such an inference is plausible from the above referred material application and the affidavit. We find that delay has not been properly explained. There is no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Hence the order:-
ORDER
1.
Misc. application for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Resultantly, appeal stands rejected.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(Dhanraj Khamatkar) (S.R.Khanzode) (S.B.Mhase) Member Judicial Member President Ms.