Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs PREETAMLAL

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 27.7.2005 in Complaint No. 43/2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) whereby the complaint was allowed and the O.P. was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,65,987 to the complainant as price of the vehicle, besides paying Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 500 towards cost.

THE appellant O.P. has filed this appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation and has also filed an application for condonation of delay. It is stated in the application that the Counsel engaged by the O.P./appellant did not appear beofre the District Forum and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against the appellant/insurer. Since the Insurance Company was not represented by the Counsel, the company could not receive the intimation and copy of order. It is further stated that the copy of the order or intimation by the District Forum was also not received by the company in its office at opposite High Court, Bilaspur, which is the concerned office impleaded by the complainant in his complaint and it was for the first time through show cause notice dated 1.10.2005 received in the office of the appellant on 3.10.2005 that the appellant came to know about the order and thereby took immediate steps for preparing the appeal and the same was filed on 21.10.2005. It is also stated in the application that there is sufficient cause, as mentioned in the application, which prevented the appellant from preferring the appeal within 30 days from the date of the order. Hence, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay in the interest of justice. An affidavit in support of the application has also been filed. The respondent has filed reply to the said application and stated that the application does not make out any ground for condonation of delay. The appellant has not filed affidavit of Mr. A. Athaley, Advocate who according to the appellant, represented the company before the District Forum. It is further stated in the reply that the appellant is obliged to explain each days delay but has failed to do so. It is further averred that after due service of notice the appellant remain unrepresented on 27.3.2004 and, therefore, was proceeded ex parte by the District Forum and it was on 18.11.2004 i.e., about 8 months after the ex parte order that an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC by the appellant, that too without any affidavit to set aside the ex parte order dated 27.3.2004. The respondent had filed reply to the application opposing the same and, therefore, the case was fixed for arguments on the appellant''s application under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C. Thereafter on 14.6.2005 again the appellant was not represented and was proceeded ex parte and finally the impugned order was passed by the learned District Forum. In the reply the respondent has prayed for dismissing the application with heavy cost.

Learned Counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused.

ON perusal of record of the District Forum the averments made in reply regarding absence of O.P. are found to be correct. This demonstrates casual attitude adopted by the O.P./appellant. It further appears that copy of order dated 27.7.2005 was sent to the O.P. on 28.7.2005 by post obviously to the address of the appellant/O.P. as stated in the complaint i.e., opposite High Court, Bilaspur. Admittedly, the office of the appellant/O.P. is at the same place. Hence, we find no reason to believe as to why the said order was not delivered at the aforesaid office. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been adopting a very casual attitude towards the proceedings before the District Forum and has been careless in filing the appeal also. The application for condonation of delay does not disclose any sufficient ground for condonation. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.