State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Shakilabee Pashu Shaikh on 7 January, 2022
1 MA/364/2019 in
FA/1486/2019
Date of filing :04.10.20019
Date of order :07.01.2022
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSALCOMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO: 364 OF 2019
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.:1486 OF 2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :JALNA.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,.
Division Office- II,
Adalat road, Aurangabad.
Through its Divisional Manager,
Shri.SantoshPundalikraoKalse.
R/o Atpresent at Aurangabad. APPELLANT
VERSUS
Smt. ShakilabeePashuShaikh,
R/o AtLatifpur, Tq. Bhakardan, Dist.Jalna. RESPONDENT
CORAM :Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.M.Bhalekar for appellant,
Adv.P.C.Mayure for respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 07/01/2022) PerSmt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,.has preferred this appeal along with delay condonation application against the judgment and order of District Consumer Forum, Jalna in 2 MA/364/2019 in FA/1486/2019 C.C.No.07/2019 decided on 25.04.2019. On delay condonation application notices has been issued to respondent. On behalf of respondent/Ori. Complainant Adv. P.C.Mayure appeared. It is the contention of appellant that, appellant is corporation and doing business in General Insurance in various places in the country. The claim in this matter was repudiated on 23.04.2018. Being aggrieved by decision the respondent Shakilabee Pashu Shaikh has filed consumer compliant before District Consumer Forum, Jalna. It is the contention of complainant that, on 2.2.2017 her deceased husband was travelling from Chikalthana to Misarwadi on 1.2.2017. At that time one pig came in front of his vehicle and he fell down and he died in the hospital. The intimation of this incident was given to CIDCO, Police Station, Aurangabad. Police have made investigation into the matter. The respondent/ ori. Complainant has registered her claim under the scheme known as "Gopination Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana" and submitted necessary documents. The office of appellant verified those papers and also visited revenue office and during investigation it is noticed that, there was no mutation entry in the name of deceased. There was no 7/12 extract entry or entry in 6- D or 6-C extract in the name of deceased Pashu. Claimant has not submitted those documents. Hence, her claim is rejected before District Consumer Forum. Her complaint is resisted by appellant. However, District Consumer Forum held that, repudiation on the part of Insurance Company is not proper. Hence, being aggrieved by said judgment the appellant has preferred this appeal along with delay condonation application. On the point of delay condonation it is the contention of appellant that, impugned order passed by District 3 MA/364/2019 in FA/1486/2019 Consumer Forum on 25.4.2019 and the appellant received certified copy on the same day. Some time spent for obtaining opinion from Senior Counsel and Regional office. The Regional office issued letter on 18.7.2019 with opinion for filing appeal. Thereupon on depositing the statutory amount to District Consumer Forum this appeal is filed along with delay condonation application. In that event delay of 154 days has been caused. It is also submitted that this delay is not intentional or deliberate, but procedural one. It is also argued that, there is cope on merits in this appeal. Deceased was not having required documents such as 7/12 extract, 6-D and 6-C extract. However, the Ld. District Consumer Forum has ignored this aspect and failed to appreciate the actual facts and record. Hence, the Ld. Adv. for appellant has prayed to condone the delay to give them opportunity of hearing on merits.
2. On the other hand, the Ld. Adv. for respondent has strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that, delay is not explained properly. There is huge delay of 154 days in the matter. So far as the merits of the case is concerned the claim is repudiated on the ground that the deceased was not having his name in 7/12 extract or in the record of 6-Complainant & 6-D form. Said submission of appellant Insurance Company is false. The record states that, the respondent /Ori. Complainant has submitted all required documents which is in fact admitted in the appeal memo itself and those documents are also produced on record along with appeal memo. There is 7/12 extract showing name of deceased Shaikh Pashu Shaikh Habib, as a legal heir of Shaikh Umar. The 4 MA/364/2019 in FA/1486/2019 certificate to that effect is on record showing the land in the name of Pashu Shaikh Habib at page No.112. 7/12 extract along with mutation entry No.40 at page No. 113 to 114 and extract of ferfar register No. 372 showing the name of Shaikh Pashu as the Legal heir of Shaikh Umar Shaikh Ahmad and there is mutation entry No.44 in the name of Legal heirs of deceased Shaikh Pashu also to land Gut No.25 situated at LatifpurTq. Bhokardhan, Dist.Jalna. These prima facie documents were also before District Consumer Forum on the basis of which the District Consumer Forum has decided that the repudiation of the claim on the part of opponent is not just and proper. Hence, complaint is allowed by awarding amount of insurance under "Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana" . It is also argued on behalf of respondent/ Ori. Complainant that, respondent/Ori. Complainant has made compliance as required under the scheme as per प - ब,क,डwhich shows that, deceased was agriculturists. Therefore, the judgment of District Consumer Forum is supported by Advocate for complainant. It is submitted that, in the aforesaid situation it is not desirable to allow the delay condonation application even considering the fact that, there is no scope on merits also, to the appellant in this matter.
3. With these respective submissions we have perused documents and application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, the judgment passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalna on 25.4.2019. The appellant received copy of judgment on the same day. It is also admitted that there is 154 days delay in preferring appeal which is filed on 4.10.2019. In fact, as per the contention of appellant 5 MA/364/2019 in FA/1486/2019 themselves that, the appellant received opinion from Regional office, on 18.7.2019 itself and in spite of receiving the opinion on 18.7.2019 after lapse of 3 months the present appeal is filed and that period is also not explained by the appellant Insurance Company. It is true that, while deciding the delay condonation application we have to go into the merits of the case some time when the question of public money is involved. At the same time the Insurance Company which dealing in insurance transaction should be due diligent in such cases in preferring appeal even if it is assumed that there is some procedural delay on the part of appellant. However, in spite of issuing opinion by Regional office further delay 3 months is caused in this case which is not explained properly and with only causal submission that, after receiving the opinion and depositing the statutory amount the appeal is preferred is not sufficient to explain the delay. Thus delay is not explained with sufficient reason properly.
4. On prima facie perusal of documents filed along with appeal memo and judgment of District Consumer Forum it reveals that, there are prima facie documents to show that, deceased was agriculturists at the time of his death. As mentioned earlier 7/12 extract and mutation entry are in the name of deceased as well as his present legal heirs. There is also certificate issued by Talathi showing legal heirs of deceased and all other documents on record. Admittedly, the claim was repudiated by Insurance Company only on the ground of want of documents such as 7/12 extract, 6-C, 6-D extract in the name of deceased. When such documents were 6 MA/364/2019 in FA/1486/2019 available before District Consumer Forum and it is proved before District Consumer Forum that deceased was agriculturist at the relevant time it is not desirable to put the parties to further litigation when there is in ordinate delay on the part of appellant in preferring this appeal and it is not explained properly. Hence, there is no reason to give opportunity by condoning delay to proceed further on merits. Hence, the order.
ORDER
1. The application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.
2. Consequently appeal is dismissed.
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne, Member Presiding Judicial Member UNK