State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Compny vs Smt Geeta Chanchal Moon on 27 April, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. SC/CB2/27/MA/121/2023
IN
SC/CB2/27/A/180/2023
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPNY
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS DIVISINAL MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE NO 3, PLOT
NO 321/A-2, J.N. ROAD, PUNE-411042. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL
OFFICE, NELSON SQUARE, CHINWADA ROAD, NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
SMT GEETA CHANCHAL MOON
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O KHAPRI, TAH HINGANGHATNDIST WARDHA ,MAHARASHTRA.
TALUKA KRUSHI ADHIKARI
PRESENT ADDRESS - TALUKA KRUSHI ADHIKARI HINGANGHAT, TAH HINGANGHAT DIST
WARDHA ,MAHARASHTRA.
M/S JAYKA INSURANCE BROKERS PVT.LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR JAYKA BUILDING
COMMERCIAL ROAD,CIVIL LINES,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
LEARNED ADVOCATE ALPANA INGOLIKAR ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANT/APPELLANT ADVOCATE.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NONE FOR RESPONDENTS
DATED: 27/04/2026
ORDER
PER MS.SHAILA WANDHARE, HON'BLE MEMBER
01. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay of 240 days caused for filing the Appeal against the impugned order dated 20/10/2022 in CC No.24 of 2020 by the learned District Consumer Redressal Commission Wardha.After filing of an application for condonation of delay notices were issued to the Non-Applicant no 1 to 3 duly served but non applicant no 1 and 2 failed to file their reply to this application. Non-Applicant no. 3 filed reply.
02. We have heard the learned Advocate Alpana Ingolikar on behalf of the applicant/appellant dvocate. Though respondent 3 filed reply but choose to absent for hearing.
03. Learned Advocate for the applicant argued that the impugned order dated 20/10/2022 passed in CC No.24 of 2020 by the learned District Consumer Redressal Commission Wardha against the insurance company. Local counsel for the opposite party has received the certified copy on 21/11/2022 . The period of limitation of 45 days upto 05/01/2023. After receiving the certified copy counsel for the opposite party submitted his legal opinion along-with to the branch office at Wardha who was dealing with the matter. The branch office forwarded it to the Regional Office. Then Regional Office forwarded it to Pune,who was in charge of all consumer cases of Gopinath Munde Shetkari Vima Yojna for their opinion . Pune office permitted to the branch office to file appeal. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the due to official procedure and approval by the higher authorities there is delay of 240 days.The learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that the delay occasioned is not deliberate and no negligence on the part of the applicant. Thus, applicant prayed for to allow the application.Applicant placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Shah Vs. Govind Singh (Civil Appeal No.4628 of 2023 decided on 24.07.2023).
04. Non aplicant no 1 to 2 despite of due service failed to appear and reply. Non- applicant 3 also chooses to absent for hearing.
05. On the contention of the applicant only point arise before us for determination is whether the applicant discloses sufficient cause for not preferring the consumer appeal within the prescribed period of limitation?
06. It is very material to note here that the expression 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on its part and applicant must satisfy the Commission that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. Therefore, the reason of delay caused for preferring the appeal is required to be seen whether it is sufficient cause for preventing the applicant for presenting the appeal against impugned order.
07. On perusal of application for condonation of delay, it appears that applicant alleges the reason of delay as impugned order dated 20/10/2022 in CC No.24 of 2020 passed against the applicant referred to higher authority for opinion and approval for appeal which they received in 21/11/2022 but aplicant failed to file appeal .After approval appeal is filed along-with application for condonation of delay caused due to official exigency and not intentional one.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raheem Shah & Ors. vs Govind Singh & Ors., (supra) it is held that though a liberal approach should be adopted, delay cannot be condoned in absence of satisfactory and reasonable explanation.
08. We have gone through the material on record and found that the reason of delay mentioned by the applicant is not supported with any documents of correspondence with the higher authorities. As such, the reason given hereunder appears unjust and not reliable one. Mere statement of delay caused for preferring appeal due to official exigency without justifiable explanation for such delay is not itself sufficient to accept it when the object of Consumer Protection Act is clear enough to adjudication of the consumer disputes expeditious.
09. In the given set of circumstance, we have no hesitation to hold that the delay so caused for preferring the appeal appears unreasonable one and not properly and satisfactorily explained by the applicant. There was no sufficient cause shown by the applicant which prevent applicant for preferring appeal in the prescribed period of limitation. As, the applicant failed to show sufficient cause and justify the delay of 240 days so caused, the application filed seeking condonation of said delay is without any merit and needs to be dismissed. Thus, we hold no merit in the present application to proceed with as the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this belated appeal is entertained. So, we proceed to pass following order;
ORDER
1) The application for condonation of delay of 240 days stands rejected and hence consequently appeal also disposed off.
2) No order as to cost.
3) Copy of order furnished to both the parties concerned.
..................J KALYANI KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER