State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager,Tata Aig General ... vs R. Guanalan, Tanjore Througn His Power ... on 17 February, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.M.P.No.18/2020
in
F.A.Sr.No.28/2020
(Against the order in C.C.No.57/2013, dated 23.09.2019 on the file of the District
Commission, Thanjavur.)
FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023.
The Branch Manager,
TATA AIG GENERAL
Insurance Company Limited,
Raheja Towers, 9th Floor,
177 Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002. Petitioner/appellant/1st opposite party
-Vs-
1. R.Gunalan,
S/o Ramalingam,
Old No.1/62B New No.11,
Medical College Road,
Vivekanantha Nagar,
Tanjore through his power
Agent R.Deenadhayalan, 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/Complainant
2. The Manager,
Harsha Automobiles Private Limited,
Harsha Toyota,
62 PH Road, Goparasanallur,
Kumananchavadi,
Poonamallee East Tambaram,
Tiruvallur District,
Tamil Nadu 600 056. 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/2nd Opp.Party
3. The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance
Company Limited,
1/396 Raja Nagar,
Trichy Road,
Near New Bus Stand,
Tanjore -612 006. 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent/3rd Opp.Party
2
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant/Opposite Party-1 : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-1/Respondent-1/Complainant : Mr.R.Rajamohan, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-2/Respondent-2/Opposite Party-2 : Ex-Parte.
Counsel for Respondent-3/Respondent-3/Opp.Party-3 :Mr.Anand C Rajesh,Advocate.
This petition coming before me for final hearing on 19.01.2023 and upon
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N.RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Appellant/1st opposite party to condone the delay of 68 days in preferring the First Appeal before this Commission against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur in C.C.No.57/2013, dated 23.09.2019, partly allowing the complaint.
2. In the petition affidavit, the petitioner/ 1st opposite party has averred as follows;- The District Commission, Tanjore has directed the petitioner/appellant/1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost and subsequently on the basis of a memo filed by the third opposite party the District Commission directed the complainant shall be entitled to 40% out of the award amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and the third opposite party shall be entitled to 60% and the 1st respondent/1st respondent/complainant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The above order was not passed on merits it requires the interference. The petitioner/appellant/1st opposite party ought to have filed the appeal before 20.11.2019 but with a delay of 68 days the appeal is filed. After receiving the order the petitioner has sent the same to its higher official and they in turn forwarded the 3 same to the senior counsels to ascertain about the feasibility of preferring the appeal. The senior counsel was of the opinion that the petitioner/appellant/1st opposite party has a fair chance of establishing its case before the Appellate Court but we have received the papers from the senior counsel's office with a delay and the petitioner could not file the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
3. After receiving the notice the 1st respondent/1st respondent/complainant and 3rd respondent/3rd respondent/3rd opposite party were entered into appearance through their counsels. The 2nd respondent/2nd respondent/2nd opposite party remained absent after entered into appearance. The 1st respondent/1st respondent/complainant has not filed counter after giving sufficient time.
4. The 3rd respondent/3rd respondent/3rd opposite party alone filed the counter stating that, the District Commission has passed the order the petitioner/appellant/1st opposite party has come forward with unsuitable reasons to delay and filed the appeal against the respondents. There is no acceptable ground established by the petitioner to file the appeal belatedly. In order to escape their legal liability and get delay to pay the awarded amount to entailed parties. The petitioner/appellant/1st opposite party wantonly filed this appeal with delayed manner, with false and incorrect and unacceptable reasons. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
5. Point for consideration is:
Whether the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal is to be condoned or not?
6. Point:- The petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant/1st opposite party and the contesting 1st respondent/1st respondent/complainant has not raised any 4 objection for condoning the delay. The 3rd respondent/3rd respondent/3rd opposite party who has been said along with the petitioner as a first opposite party in a original complaint it was awarded in the accompanying affidavit that the District Commission had passed two different orders there is some confusions therefore it requires scrutiny by Appellate Court. Even though, the appeal has been filed within a period of 30 days the delay has to be condoned only for the reason to arrive final decision in the dispute. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the petition is allowed and answered accordingly for the point for consideration.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed. No cost.
The Registry is directed to taken on file this appeal if it is otherwise in order.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of February 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxx N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
5