NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs JAYDIP AGENCIES

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12-01-2015 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, ''the State Commission''), in Appeal No. 14/446 M/s Jaydip Agencies Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by which appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum against opposite party/petitioner and learned District Forum vide order dated 16-11-2013 allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs.12,05,875/- with 6% p.a. interest and further directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-. Opposite party filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed application for condonation of delay along with appeal, against which this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of giving reasonable explanation for condonation of delay learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and delay be condoned and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

Petitioner filed application before learned State Commission for condonation of delay of 131/143 days and submitted that petitioner''s advocate received certified copy of order of District Forum on 23.12.2013 which was received by petitioner on 07-01-2014 and sent to Regional Office on 27-01-2014 and Divisional Office received approval on 15-04-2014 from Regional Office and matter was forwarded to the advocate for filing appeal in which delay of 131 days occurred from receiving order of certified copy and 143 days from the date of order i.e. 16-11-2014. Learned State Commission observed delay of 139 days. It is not clear appeal was filed on which date but it appears that it was filed in May, 2014. If delay is counted from date of receipt of certified copy on 23-12-2013 it will not exceed more than 128 days even if appeal is filed on last day of May, 2014.

Perusal of application reveals that petitioner''s office took 20 days in forwarding to Regional Office and 21/2 months were taken by Divisional Office in obtaining approval from Regional Office which makes it clear that unnecessary much time was taken by both the offices in granting approval for filing appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention towards letter dated 26.03.2014 sent by Divisional Office to Chief Manager, Mumbai in which it was mentioned that demand draft of Rs.25,000/- is to be prepared by nationalized bank and they do not have any account in nationalized bank so they are depositing cheque in Chief Manager''s Office account for arranging demand draft. He has also drawn my attention towards letter dated 08-05-2014 sent by advocate Herbert A. Noronha to Divisional Manager in which it was mentioned that draft of Rs.25,000/- was sent in the name of ''Registrar, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra'' whereas it was to be sent in the name of ''Registrar, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai District'', so earlier draft may be cancelled and fresh draft may be sent. These letters indicates that on account of confusion draft could not be got prepared in right name by the petitioner for filing appeal before State Commission. Learned counsel for the respondent rightly submitted that these circumstances were not pleaded in application for condonation of delay but these letters cannot be treated as prepared later on. I deem it appropriate to consider these letters though not pleaded in application for condonation of delay. If these factors are also considered reasonable explanation has been given by petitioner for condonation of delay.

Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention towards order of this Commission in First Appeal No. 252 of 2010 Savithri Chandrabhan Jaiswansi & Anr. Vs. Dr. D.R. Gurbani & Anr., by which delay of 127 days in filing appeal was not condoned. In similar way in Revision Petition No. 2321 of 2013 The Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board & Anr. Vs. Shri Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, order refusing to condone delay of 77 days by State Commission was affirmed and this order was affirmed by Hon''ble Apex Court in SLP No. 33792/2013. He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1352 of 2014 M/s Sunil Builders & Ors. Vs. Kaveri CHS Ltd. & Ors., in which delay of 98 days in filing revision petition was not condoned. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards latest judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in which delay was condoned. This Commission dismissed revision petitions in RP No. 2021-2022 of 2013 Jeevanti Devi Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. as barred by 135 days; in RP No. 2121 of 2013 Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. as barred by 218 days and in A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India; as barred by 149 days, but, Hon''ble Apex Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr; Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors; and A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India; respectively, and orders dismissing revision petitions were set aside and matters were remanded back.

In the light of aforesaid latest judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court it would be appropriate to condone delay of less than 130 days in filing appeal before State Commission looking to the explanation submitted by petitioner in application for condonation of delay along with correspondence filed before this Commission.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 12-01-2015 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 14/446 M/s Jaydip Agencies Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner before learned State Commission is allowed and delay stands condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to respondent and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide the appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 19-11-2015.