Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Ankitbhai Kaushikbhai Lalwala vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd. on 23 June, 2023

      IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                STATE OF GUJARAT
                                       COURT NO.4

                                                              MA no. 554 of 2023

APPLICANT:            Ankit K. Lalwala

                                           VS

RESPONDENT:           United India Insurance Co. Ltd.



CORUM: Mr. R.N. Mehta, Presiding Member

Ms. P. R. Shah, Member Appearance: Mr. S.G. Shah Advocate for Applicant Mr. P.H. Thakkar Advocate for the Respondent (By Ms. P.R. Shah, Dt.23/06/2023)

1) Being dissatisfied with the order and judgment dated 28/11/2022 of District Commission, Surat, in Consumer complaint No. CC 833 of 2021, the applicant herein wants to prefer appeal under the provisions of Sec.41 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Sec.15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986). However, the appeal has been delayed by 161 days and therefore to condone such delay Present application is being moved under the above referred Section and also Sec.5 of the Limitation Act.

2) Initially, show cause notice as to why delay should not be condoned was issued to the respondents.

3) Mr. P.H. Thakkar has filed appearance for respondent.

4) Heard Mr. S.G. Shah for applicant and Mr. P.H. Thakkar for the respondents. Read application and perused documents placed on record.

5) The impugned order was passed on 28/11/2022. Copy thereof was made available to party. The appeal was presented on 08/05/2023. Thus there is delay of 161 days.

6) Mr. S. G. Shah submits that reasons for delay are as under:

a) For preparing and filing an appeal and to get advise from our advocate. That is why there is a delay of 161 days.

7) He submits that there was no intentional delay an appeal has been preferred at the earliest and the applicant has good case on merits. There are all probabilities that applicant may succeed in appeal. If delay is not condoned, it will cause great injustice to the applicant. If delay is condoned, it will not cause any injustice to the present respondents because even in appeal their legitimate right to defend is protected by law.

8) Mr. P.H. Thakkar for the respondents submits that the reasons mentioned in application are administrative in true sense which could have been minimized as it was well within the control of the applicants.

No diligent steps have been taken to avoid any such delay.

9) I am the opinion that administrative delay can also be minimized with diligent efforts. When the law prescribed period for filing appeal, the aggrieved party should take up the cause as early as possible. Delay beyond more than reasonable period, that too, over and above the period prescribed under the law, clearly suggests that applicant have not made sincere efforts to minimize delay. It also can be said that time has been allowed to run carelessly. It is well said that delayed justice is no justice Sanjana MA 554 2023 Page 2 of 3 and therefore the other part should not be made to suffer. Just to put a curb on habit of filing of appeals with delay of more than reasonable period it would be just and proper to impose cost on the applicant. It is in these circumstances, I pass following order.

ORDER Misc. Application No. 554 of 2023 is hereby allowed and delay of 161 days in preferring appeal is hereby condoned subject to cost of Rs. 1000/- which is to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund within four weeks from today.

The office is hereby directed to register appeal and to put it before appropriate bench for admission hearing of appeal on. 24/07/2023.

Pronounced today on this 23rd day of June, 2023.

          P.R. Shah                                               R.N. Mehta

           Member                                              Presiding Member




Sanjana                                MA 554 2023                        Page 3 of 3