CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



First Appeal no.654/2008 in Date of Filing: 03/05/2008

@ Misc.Application No.929/2008-Delay

930/2008-Stay

Consumer Complaint No.489/2007

District Consumer Forum: Kolhapur Date of Order: 06/06/2009



ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant

Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, (Org.Opp.Party no.1)

Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400 034.

V/S.

1. Smt.Sunanda Maruti Shegte, Respondents

At Post Turambe, Taluka- Radhanagari, (Org.Complainant)

Dist- Kolhapur.

2. Collector of Kolhapur on behalf of the (Org.Opp.Party no.2)

Government of Maharashtra.



Corum : Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present: Adv. Mr.N.Mehta for appellant.



:- ORDER :-

Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 01/01/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.489/2007, Smt.Sunanda Maruti Shegte V/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. passed by District Kolhapur(Forum below in short). It is the case of respondent/complainant/ Smt.Sunanda Maruti Shegte that her husband was Cultivator and he died in an accident on 03/02/2005. Opposite party no.2/ Govt. of Maharashtra had taken a insurance policy from opposite party no.1/insurance company for the interest of Cultivators claiming that on the accidental death of her husband, she is entitled o benefit under the said policy, insurance claim was made by the complainant. The same was repudiated by the insurance company and therefore, consumer complaint was filed. The consumer complaint filed came to be decreed directing the appellant/opposite party no.1/insurance company to pay Rs.1 lakh along with the interest and feeling aggrieved thereby, the insurance company preferred this appeal.

We heard Adv.shri N.Mehta for the appellant at the stage of admission itself along with condonation of delay application. Perused the record.

There is delay of 72 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is that certified copy of the impugned award dated 01/01/2008 was received by the appellant on 18/01/2008. The appellant did not make any statement about the communication of the award passed by the Forum below as per the requirement of law and as to when actually they have received the intimation along with the authenticated copy of the award passed. After obtaining the certified copy the same was handed over to their Advocate on 04/03/2008 i.e. obviously after the period of limitation for filing of the appeal, which was available to the appellant was lapsed. Thereafter the inordinate delay occurred due to inaction on the part of the lawyer, who perhaps as claimed by the appellant, did not receive all the relevant papers from the appellant. The reason given is not at all satisfactory and as such, the delay in filing the appeal is not at all satisfactorily explained. Hence, there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Misc.Application No.929/2008 stands accordingly dismissed. Since, the delay is not condoned, appeal would not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Hence, we pass the following order:-



:-ORDER-:

1. Misc.Application No.929/2008 for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

2. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties



(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member