National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sukanti Paikray on 23 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: III(2003)CPJ55(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant, New India Assurance Company was the opposite party before the State Commission when the respondent/complainant, Smt. Sukanti Paikray had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service. State Commission after hearing the parties passed order on 31.2.2003 allowing the complaint. Against which this appeal has been filed on 14.5.2003 after a delay of 62 days. Memorandum of Appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The delay is sought to be explained in following terms :
"The certified copy of the order dated 31.1.2003 was received by the dealing Counsel forwarded the certified copy alongwith his report to the Cuttack Divisional Office of the appellant on 18th February, 2003. The Cuttack Divisional Office forwarded the same alongwith the necessary observations and documents to the Regional Office on 6th March, 2003 who in turn forwarded the same to the Delhi Regional Office on 7th March, 2003 and the same were received by Delhi Regional Office on 14th March, 2003 and in the Legal Department on 17th March, 2003. The Delhi Regional Office sought certain clarifications from the Head Office vide letter dated 20th March, 2003. The file was sent for drafting the appeal on 23rd April, 2003 to the Lawyer who drafted the same and filed the present appeal. As such, there has been delay of sixty two days in the filing of this appeal.
The delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but only on account of the facts and circumstances stated above. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice to condone the delay in filing of the appeal."
2. We do not find these to be sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. Explanation is, usual delay in processing the cases in a (sic.) system where decision making is diffused. It has to be appreciated that an important right has accrued to the complainant which cannot be easily tempered with and sufficient grounds are not shown to condone the delay. In the circumstances, we are unable to entertain the appeal and is dismissed as barred by limitation.