AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, J
This dispute relates to 2014, we are in 2019.
We heard the learned counsels for the revision petitioner - complainant and the respondent - insurance co. Perused the material on record.
This revision has been filed against the State Commission's Order dated 27.09.2016, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioner - complainant.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 04.09.2016 had arrived at a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - insurance co., and dismissed the claim of the complainant:
ORDER
Consequently, the Complaint of the Complainant is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective expenses.
(as per the translated copy furnished by the revision petitioner)
The State Commission vide its Order dated 27.09.2016 had dismissed the appeal of the complainant:
The Complainant's father expired on 23.11.2012 and he came to know about taking place of theft in the house on 30.12.2010, the First Information Report has been registered on 16.01.2013. The Complainant has stated that that he had lodged the First Information Report on the same day. But from the document ex.8 it appears that the First Information Report has been registered on 16.01.2013. Merely the information Ex.7 dated 30.12.2012 was given, is not acceptable, because under Section-154 Cr. P. C. there is provision to lodge the First Information Report Immediately. The Insurance Company has also informed with delay, whereas the Complainant himself is a responsible officer of the Insurance Company.
In such a situation the learned District Forum which has dismissed the Complaint, in that there is no error of any kind. The Appeal is liable to be dismissed, it is hereby dismissed.
(paras 4 and 5 of the State Commission's Order)
(as per the translated copy furnished by the revision petitioner)
The complainant has filed this revision before this Commission against the said Order dated 27.09.2016 of the State Commission, with self-admitted delay of 105 days.
To begin with, the application for condonation of delay was considered.
The revision has been filed with admitted delay of 105 days. The stated reasons for delay in filing the revision, as mentioned in paras 2 to 4 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:
That the petitioner has set-out the facts and circumstances of the case in detail in the accompanying Revision Petition, which are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and the petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Commission to rely upon the same at the time of disposal of the instant Applicant.
It is submitted that the counsel informed about the order in December, 2016. Thereafter some time was consumed and unintentionally the advocate was contacted in the month of Mary, 2017. The Revision was prepared thereafter and filed in Second week of April, 2017. Therefore, the delay of 105 days caused in filing the present Petition, otherwise is bonafide and unintentional.
That the Application is made bonafide and in the interest of justice.
(paras 2, 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay)
The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons).The period of limitation to file revision petition is 90 days (Regulation 14 (1) (i) of the Regulations 2005).This revision petition has been filed with (further) admitted delay of 105 days.
It is noted that the stated reasons for delay, as enunciated in the application for condonation of delay, and as reproduced, verbatim, in toto, in para 7 above, (only) point towards a perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, and are illogical and absurd to explain convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the revision.
No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible.
This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. The revision has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below. Without attempting to examine or adjudicate the matter on merit, we note paras 4 and 5 of the State Commission's Order (quoted in para 4 above), wherein the State Commission has succinctly summed-up the gist of the case. This bench but finds no reason to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. On the contrary, this bench prima facie finds the claim of the complainant to have an air of suspicion.
The application for condonation of delay, being unconvincing and devoid of merit, is dismissed. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed on limitation.