State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shaikh Sadek Shaikh Yakub vs Manager, Reliane General Insurance Co ... on 11 July, 2022
1 MA/470/2019 in FA/1635/2019
Date of filing :17.12.2019
Date of order :11.07.2022
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
MIS.APPLICATION NO. : 470 OF 2019
WITH APPEAL NO.: 1635 OF 2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : JALNA.
Shaikh Sadek S/o Sk.Yakub,
R/o Hakim Mohalla, Old Jalna. APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company,
C 9-10, 2nd floor, ABC Complex, Adalat road,
Aurangabad.
2. HBD Financial Services Ltd,.
Benjosheetal Building, 2nd floor,
In front of ICICI Bank, Mama Chowk,
Jalna. RESPONDENT
CORAM :Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.T.R.Quadri for appellant,
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 11/07/2022) Per Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
2 MA/470/2019 in FA/1635/2019
1. Adv. T.R.Quadri for appellant absent. Brother of appellant without producing any authority letter was present. Adv. R.S.Malani for respondent no.1 absent. Respondent no.2 though served with notice on delay condonation application remain absent. Matter was kept for hearing and order. There is delay condonation application. It reveals from record that, appeal is filed along with delay condonation application by ori. Complainant Shaikh Sadek Shaikh Yakub against the judgment of Dis. Consumer Commission, Jalna in C.C. NO. 122/2018 decided on 7.12.2018. Judgment of District Commission is dated 7.12.2018. According to appellant he received copy of judgment on 26.2.2019. In fact, it reveals from certified copy that, the first copy was forwarded to the parties by outward endorsement dated 15.12.2018 and it also bears the signature of Adv. Pathan who received the copy on 15.12.2018. Appeal is presented on 17.12.2019. Thus, there is delay of about 333 days in preferring appeal.
2. It is submitted on behalf of appellant in delay condonation application that, he is a driver. He was on truck and out of station since dated 26.2.2019 to 14.12.2019 and he has submitted appeal on 17.12.2019. Besides his bare word he has not submitted any affidavit or any evidence to show that, he was out of station during said period.
3. Thus, there is no sufficient reason or evidence to explain inordinate delay of 333 days. If such delay is 3 MA/470/2019 in FA/1635/2019 condoned it will be against the provision and object of Consumer Protection Act.
4. Even otherwise we have tried to see whether there is any scope on merits. However, it reveals that, the complaint is against Insurance Company in respect of theft of vehicle. The District Commission has awarded 75 % of ID value by observing negligence on the part of complainant which is violating the terms and condition of the policy. In addition to that, the delay being inordinate. It is desirable to allow such inordinate contrary to the object of the Act. In the circumstances application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the order.
ORDER
1. The application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.
2. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne, Member Presiding Judicial Member UNK