State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mrs. Madhu Ramesh Jain on 12 December, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . Date of filing : 29.03.2007 Date of Order : 12.12.2008 MISC. APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2007 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 682 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON. National Insurance Company Ltd. Having its Regd. & Head Office at 3, Meddlton street Calcutta 700 001 Abd Branch Manager Kelkar Market, Jalgaon through its Divisional Office At Hazari Chambers Station Road Aurangabd, through its constituted Attorney Mr. Banabihari Dibyasingh Patra. Appellant/(Orig. Respondent) VERSUS Mrs. Madhu Ramesh Jain R/o. Shirsoli Road, Meharun Jalgaon, Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon. Respondents/(Org. Complainant) Coram : 1) Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, Honble Judicial Member 2) Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member. Present: Adv. Shri. V.N. Upadhye, for the appellant. Adv. Shri. B.S. Deshmukh, for respondent. ::ORAL ORDER:
:
(Date:- 12.12.2008) Per Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, Hon,ble Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the National Insurance Co. against the judgment and order dated 28.02.06 in complaint case No.682/05, passed by Dist. Consumer Forum, Jalgaon.
2. The respondents case before the Forum is that, her Maruti Car bearing No. MP/23L-7970 was insured with the appellant for the period 08.01.2003 to 07.01.2004. It is contended that, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 08.05.2003 and was damaged. The respondent preferred the claim before the appellant. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 11.02.2005 on the ground that the date of the accident, cause and the nature of accident as per narration in claim form differs with spot panchanama conducted by the police and thus, she approached the Forum.
3. The present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim stating that, they have rightly repudiated the claim as date of accident, cause and nature of accident shown in the claim form differs from spot panchnama.
4. Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.32,000/-with the interest @ 6% p.a. from repudiation of the claim i.e. 11.02.05. The Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the mental agony and cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order National Insurance Company came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the respondent. The learned counsel Shri. B.S. Deshmukh, appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard the learned counsel Shri. V.N. Upadhye, for the appellant and B.S. Deshmukh, for the respondent. The learned counsel Upadhye submitted that, the appellant has explained delay satisfactorily in the application for condonation of the delay. The learned counsel submitted that the copy of the judgment was forwarded to the appellant on 13.10.06 and thereafter the office obtained legal opinion and forwarded the same to the Divisional office at Aurangabad for advise. After scrutiny of the papers, the entire file was forwarded to the Regional office at Pune for seeking approval for filing appeal. The Regional office sent the file to its legal retainer who after going through the papers, opined that the impugned order deserves to be challenged by preferring an appeal Regional office forwarded the file along with opinion to the Divisional office for further action as advised which it received on or about 26.03.2007 and the appeal was filed on 29.03.2007. The learned counsel submitted that the delay caused in filing the appeal is properly explained. On the other hand Adv. B.S. Deshmukh submitted that no dates of forwarding file to several offices have been mentioned by the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant has not mentioned the date of forwarding the papers to the office. According to him the explanation given by the appellant is vague and not satisfactory.
7. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the counsels. On perusal of papers it reveals that the appellant did not mention the specific dates when the file was forwarded to Divisional office Aurangabad and thereafter Regional office Pune. Even the date of sanction to file appeal is not mentioned. Simply it is mentioned that the papers were issued by Regional office on 26.03.2007. As the dates are not specifically mentioned there is nothing on record to show that the time consumed for according sanction was just and proper. It also be mentioned that in M/s. National Insurance Company vs. Narmadabai Pralhad Mote & Anr. II (2002) ACL 279 (D.B.) The Division Bench at Mumbai High Court has observed that the shuffling of papers from one office to another is no ground for extending the period of limitation or condonation of delay. In the circumstances we are not inclined to condone the delay. We pass the following order.
-::ORDER::-
1. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
2. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
Mrs.Uma S. Bora S. G. Deshmukh Member Judicial Member Kalyankar