CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2017) 06 NCDRC CK 0021

SOUREN DUTT vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 22 June 2017 · Citation: 2017 3 CPR 174

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajit Bharihoke, Rekha Gupta
CASE NUMBER
1957 of 2017
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 344 words
1.

Petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, West Bengal dated 22.5.2015 declining to condone the delay of 113 days in filing of the appeal and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation has preferred this revision petition.

2.

The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of 90 days period of limitation with a delay of 742 days. The petitioner has, therefore, moved an application for condonation of delay.

3.

Before adverting to the arguments of the petitioner it would be useful to refer to some salient facts. The father of the petitioner had purchased two insurance policies from the respondent insurance company. After the death of the father the petitioner submitted insurance claims, which were repudiated. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint on contest and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay the insurance amount under the policies to the petitioner/complainant. The order has been complied with.

4.

The petitioner has contended that the delay of 742 days in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and the petitioner was prevented from filing the revision petition within the period of limitation because his mother was seriously ill and because of the financial constraints.

5.

We do not find the explanation satisfactory particularly for the reason that on our query the petitioner has stated that his mother died in October, 2016. If that is so, there is no explanation as to what prevented the petitioner from filing the revision petition till 20.6.2017. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the petitioner was not prompt in pursuing his right i.e. filing of appeal. Despite of the fact that the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the petitioner kept on sleeping over his rights and has filed the revision petition after a delay of 742 days. Thus, we do not find any reason to condone the delay. Application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.