State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Parveen Dabas Son Of Sh. Jagdish Singh on 21 October, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 21.10.2011 First Appeal - 871/2010 (Arising out of the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the District Forum-III, Community Centre, C-Block, Janaj Puri, New Delhi in complaint case No. 767/2008) M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd floor, 1, DLF Industrial Estate, Moti Nagar Delhi 110 015 .........Appellant VS Shri Parveen Dabas son of sh. Jagdish Singh Dabas 118, Village & P.O. Rani Khera, Delhi-81 ..Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
1. Heard at admission stage.
2. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the District Forum-III, Community Centre, C-Block, Janaj Puri, New Delhi in complaint case No. 767/2008 vide which the appellant OP Insurance Co. was directed to pay the total claim amount of Rs.6,21,725/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and cost for harassment caused to the respondent complainant on account of deficiency in services on their part.
3. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. According to the appellant himself the appeal is filed 159 days beyond the prescribed limitation. The reason given for the delay in the application may be reproduced for better appraisal of the reason assigned by the applicant for explaining the delay:-
That the District Forum had passed the impugned order on 22.5.2010 and the same was dispatched on 11.6.2010.
That the certified copy of the impugned order was received in office of the Applicant/Appellant on 14.6.2010.
That though the copy of Order was received by the Applicant/Appellant on 14.6.2010 from the District Forum but Ms. Kirti Sobti, Senior Executive of the appellant, delaing with consumer matters pertaining to Delhi region, resigned from service of the appellant in July 2010 and as such the matter could not be assigned to any Lawyer for filing an Appeal.
That on 23.11.2010, police visited office of the applicant/appellant with Bailable Warrants for arrest of Mr. Assem goyal, General manager of the Applicant/appellant and it was then the matter came to notice of the Applicant/Appellant.
5. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Narvani, Counsel for the Appellant
6. It is admitted by the appellant that there is a delay of 159 days in filing the appeal. The reasons given by the appellant cannot be considered as justifiable and sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and if such a plea is accepted, the provisions of limitation will be rendered meaningless and delay caused due to inefficiency in office of the litigant parties will have to be accepted as a reasonable ground.
7. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by the limitation at the admission stage.
8. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
9. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Mrs. Salma Noor) Member Arya