State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co ... vs Sonu Shivaji Waghmare on 13 January, 2026
1 MA/403/2024 in FA/466/2024
Date of filing :16.05.2024
Date of order :13.01.2026
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
MISCELLENEOUS APPLICTION NO. 403 of 2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 466 OF 2024
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 355 OF 2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : JALNA.
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD,.
Through its Authorised Signatory,
Sayantani Chakaraborty D/o Subrata Chakraborty,
R/o Unit No. 601 & 602, 6th floor,
Reliable Tech Park, Cloud City Campus,
Gate No.31, Mauje Eltham,
Thane-Belapur road, Airoli,
New Mumbai 400708
VERSUS
Smt.Sonu w/o Shivaji Waghmare,
R/o At Malkapur, Post Wadi(Budruk),
Tq. Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna.
Present :- Adv.S.T.Agrawal for the appellant.
Adv.P.A.Kuber for the respondent.
CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
ORDER
(Delivered on 13/01/2026) Per Mr.Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
This is a delay condonation application filed by the applicant/original opponent in C.C.No.335/2022 filed before the District Consumer Commission, Jalna. Ld. District Commission 2 MA/403/2024 in FA/466/2024 allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 28.07.2023 of non applicant/original complainant.
2. Applicant challenged the correctness and legality of the above order by filing first appeal No. 466/2024 before this Commission along with the present delay condonation application.
3. Heard Adv.S.T.Agrawal for applicant and Adv.P.A.Kuber for non applicant.
4. Ld. Adv.Agrawal for the applicant argued and submitted that, the judgment was passed on 28.07.2023 and its copy was received by advocate of appellant on 01.08.2023.Thereafter the copy of order was forwarded to their Mumbai office for legal opinion and approval for filing the appeal. After receipt of approval and legal opinion, the approval for deposit of statutory amount was taken from the finance department of appellant. The appeal was filed on 16.05.2024 after the delay of 245 days. The District Commission decided three complaints by a common judgment and only one copy was provided to appellant. Further it is submitted that, in absence of certified copy of order and due to administrative and procedural grounds delay of 245 day was caused for filing the appeal which is not intentional. Applicant prayed to condon the delay as there is merit in their case and every hope of success in it.
5. On the contrary Adv. Kuber for non applicant strongly objected and prayed to dismiss the delay condonation application. It is argued 3 MA/403/2024 in FA/466/2024 and submitted by him by way of his say that, the reasons given by applicant for delay shows the managerial inefficiency of applicant and therefore not reasonable, cogent, acceptable and justified. It is further submitted by him that, if such huge delay is condoned, it will not only adversely affect the very purpose of prescribing specific period of limitation in Consumer Protection Act but also the aim and object of 'Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojna' to provide immediate financial aid to the family of farmer who lost their life in an unfortunate incident.
6. As per record of the case, it appears that, the impugned judgment was passed on 28.07.2023 and its copy was received by advocate of applicant on 01.08.2023.The appeal was filed on 16.05.2024 after the delay of 245 days. It appears that, the delay was caused administrative and procedural grounds. The District Commission decided three complaints vide a common judgment and as per applicant only one copy of judgment was provided to them. However applicant could have applied for the other two certified copies immediately after receiving the first certified copy of order on 01.08.2023 but it appears that applicant did not do so. Despite of sufficient time to apply for another copy of order, applicant applied for certified copy when decided to file appeal and obtained it on 21.02.2024. Applicant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the applicant delayed so much for obtaining the certified copy 4 MA/403/2024 in FA/466/2024 of order. Also there is no relevant and reliable evidence filed by the applicant in support of their contention in respect of such delay. As such we are of the opinion that, the delay of 245 days for filing the appeal is inordinate and shows the managerial inefficiency and negligence of applicant. The grounds for delay are not at all trustworthy, satisfactory, cogent and acceptable.
7. In Basawaraj and Ors Versus The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, the term "sufficient cause" means the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted diligently or remained inactive. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of sufficient cause, irrespective of the length of delay same deserve to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned. In Anshul Aggarwal Versus New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer dispute will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and revision petitions are entertained. In Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5867 Of 2015; 9 October, 2023)......... Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, 5 MA/403/2024 in FA/466/2024 exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. The settled principle for the condonation of delay is that, condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented him to come to the Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation. Another principle is that, a party who has not acted diligently or remains inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay.
8. On perusing the appeal compilation it appears that, order of District Commission has been challenged by applicant on the ground that, the husband of non applicant was not holding the valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore the non applicant is not entitled for the insurance claim under 'Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojna'. As per the complaint of non-applicant, it appears that, the accident occurs due to fault and negligence of Tractor driver, and not due to fault of husband of non applicant. The offence was registered against the Tractor driver. As per the observation of Hon'ble High Court Of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad in W.P.No.10185/2015 with civil application no.1287/2016 Latabai Raosaheb Deshmukh V/S State of Maharastra and others, in W.P.No.9650/2014 Bhagyashree Dhage V/S The State of Maharastra and others, and in W.P.No.2420/2018 Bhagubai Devidas Javle V/S State of Maharastra, 6 MA/403/2024 in FA/466/2024 that, absence of valid driving licence at the time of accident is not valid ground for repudiation of insurance claim under 'Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojna' and the benefits of the scheme framed for social advancement cannot be denied to the hairs of the deceased farmers. As such in the light of directions given in above cited cases, we are of the opinion that, there is no merit in the appeal of applicant.
9. As such in the light of above discussion, we are of the view that, the cause shown by the applicant for delay is not at all sufficient, satisfactory, cogent and acceptable. There is no merit in the appeal of applicant. Hence, this delay condonation application M.A.No.403/2024 deserves to be rejected. As a result, the appeal F.A.No.466/2024 filed by the applicant does not survive. In the facts and the circumstances of this application there is no order as to cost. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the applicant does not survive.
2. No order as to cost.
3. The stay order granted in favor of applicant earlier is hereby vacated.
4. Copy of this order be given free of cost to both parties.
Nagesh C.Kumbre Milind S.Sonawane
Member Presiding Member
UNK