State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt Bainubai Sitaram Ghatal vs Managaer, National Insurance Co Ltd & ... on 3 October, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/10/1176
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 22/10/2010 in Case No. 268/2010 of District Nashik)
1. SMT BAINUBAI SITARAM GHATAL
ADD AT MALGONDA POST UMBARTHAN TAL SURGANA
NASHIK
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MANAGAER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
STARLING CINEMA BUILDING
2 ND FLOOR MARZAN ROAD DO 14 FORT
MUMBAI
MUMBAI
2. MANAGER
KABAL GENERAL INSURANCE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,
4/A, DEHMANDIR CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY,
SRIRANG NAGAR, PUMPING STATION ROAD,
GANGAPUR
ROAD, NASHIK.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase
PRESIDENT
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
KESHAV S SHELKE , Advocate for the Appellant Ms Teja Thanekar, Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President :
Heard both sides. This appeal can be disposed of finally at the admission stage. This arise from the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik in consumer complaint No. 268/2010 decided on 22.10.2010. By this order, District Forum has rejected the delay condonation application filed by the appellant. The complainant is a wife of the deceased Sitaram Ghatal who died on 3.12.2006 due to snake bite.
Therefore, being aware that there is a group policy taken by the Govt. of Maharashtra in favour of the agriculturalist who suffered an accidental death, the wife of the said Sitaram preferred an application to Tahsildar in January 2007 i.e. within the period of one year from the death of the person. Said application was processed by the Tahsildar with the Opponent Company. Opponent Company kept that application pending till 8.10.2008 and on that day there is rejection. Thereafter, the consumer complaint was filed on 13.9.2010. So in filing the complaint, there is a delay of 21 months 10 days. However, this delay has been calculated by the complainant from the death of deceased Sitaram. If the complaint is from the date of the refusal of the claim limitation is calculated, the complaint is within the limitation.
However, it appears probably that relying upon the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghvaiah & Co. V/s National Insurance Co.Ltd., III(2009) CPJ 75 (SC), delay was calculated by the complainant. In delay condonation application, complainant has stated that due to death of the husband, she had suffered mental agony. It has been further stated that she is resident of Adiwasi Tribe Area and she is not educated one.
On these facts, the Forum was pleased to not to condone the delay and ultimately, the complaint was dismissed. We find that the grounds which are stated and established are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Under these circumstances, delay being satisfactorily explained, it ought to have been condoned. Hence we condone the delay and accordingly pass the following order :
O R D E R The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik is set aside. The delay in filing the complaint stands condoned. District Forum is directed to hear the complainant on admission. The parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced dated 3rd October 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] Judicial Member [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER aab