M.C.No. 545 of 2021

F.A. No.202 of 2021

Learned counsel for the appellant is present.  SR not back. Since 30 days have elapsed, the service of summon against the respondent is held to be sufficient.

2.    Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of limitation. Admittedly, there is delay of 328 days in filing the appeal. He submitted that due to communication gap between the lawyer of DCDRC and the present lawyer, the delay has been occurred. He also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Suo Moto Writ(Civil) No.3 of 2020 and submitted that  the delay may be condoned.

3.    Considered the submission. Perused the petition and materials on record.

4.    It appears that the impugned order was passed on 9.10.2020 and the appeal was filed on 22.10.21. Office has pointed out 328 days delay in filing appeal. There is no specific mention as to when and where the concerned lawyer of DCDRC has supplied the copy of the order to the appellant. Also decision of Hon’ble Apex Court have extended the limitation period but on the ground of suffering from corona disease but hence ground is otherwise. We have also gone through the appeal memo and impugned order in which direction was given to pay the maturity amount to the policy holder.

5.    Be that as it may, the fact reveals that the delay has not been explained, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected and the appeal stands dismissed. The impugned order of learned District Commission should be complied within 30 days if there is no legal impediment,