ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Padma Motwani

THIS appeal has been filed on 29.4.2005, against the order dated 23.3.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Durg in Case No. 187/2004. As the appeal is time barred the appellnat has also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, together with an affidavit of Mr. B.C. Behra, Divisional Manager of the appellant company.

IN brief the reason for delay in filing the appeal was that the impugned order was passed on 23.3.2005 i.e., at the time of financial year ending and as such the work of audit was also in progress. Due to additional work load on account of financial year closing the appeal could not be filed on time and there has been delay of just 7 days and as per the appellant such delay derseves to be condoned. The respondent has vehemently opposed the application and averred in reply that the appellant is a big organization and has several departments for different works and also a huge staff. Legal department has nothing to do with the financial year ending. Hence the plea taken by the appellant for justifying the delay cannot be accepted.

HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.

IT appears that there is delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of record it is revealed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the sole ground that though the husband of the complainant had obtained Janta Personal Accident Policy from the opposite party/insurer for Rs. 5,00,000 for the period from 9.1.1999 to 8.1.2011 but the said policy was cancelled by the insurer during the life -time of the life assured, with intimation to the Steel Workers Union as the same was obtained through the same organization. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Clause 5 of the policy the insurer was authorised to cancel the policy on intimation to the insured. However, the insurer has failed to place any material on record to show that the insured was ever intimated about such cancellation. Actually it is submitted by the insurer that the policy was cancelled with vide letter addressed to the Steel Workers Union. We have decided several appeals on similar point and have concluded that such cancellation, vide letter addressed to the Steel Workers Union instead of the insured, is not cancellation as stipulated under Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy. Such view of this Commission has been approved by the National Commission by their order dated 6.7.2004 in Revision Petition No. 1196/2004 and other connected revisions.

IN view of the above discussion even if we condone the delay as prayed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, no furitful purpose is going to be served. Hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. The appellant shall bear cost of their appeal and pay that of the respondent and the same is quantified at Rs. 1,000. Appeal dismissed.