IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural delays and correspondences do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.2.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.736 of 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Mr. Sharad was the son of the complainant Gangadhar Jalkote. On 13.4.2013, he was proceeding to Satala from Lohara on Motor Cycle after filing the complaint regarding non-working of his ATM card with SBI. On the way motor cycle collided with a car and he was injured. During treatment, Mr. Sharad son of Gangadhar Jalkote died on 17.4.2013. Without lodging any claim before the Insurance Company the complainant filed a consumer complaint no.02/2014 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Latur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) with prayer that under two wheeler package accident policy no.OG-13-2010-1802-00005360, Rs.1,00,000/- be paid to the complainant. The opposite party/petitioner herein resisted the complainant on the ground that the policy was not in the name of the deceased and it only covered the liability arising for the owner-driver and the son of the complainant was not the owner-driver. Hence, OP requested for dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum vide its order dated 23.9.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs.1,00,000/– with 9% interest p.a. from the date of complaint and Rs.3000/– towards mental and physical harassment.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2014 of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.2.2016.

4. Hence the revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the policy is not in the name of the deceased Mr. Sharad rather it is in the name of Sandip Uttam rao Kalse. Moreover, the liability in the policy mentions only for the owner-driver. The deceased is not the owner of the insured vehicle and therefore, he cannot be called an owner-driver under GR 36 of the India Motor Tariff. Owner –driver has been defined as the person who is owner of the vehicle and holds an effective driving license at the time of accident.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following judgments in support of his case.

(i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Havaben and M/s. Arif Enterprise, RP No.3061 of 2008, decided on 4.9.2013 (NC).

(ii) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. ChanderPrabhaand Anr., RP No.1202 of 2008, decided on 15.4.2013 (NC).

(iii) IFFCO Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. SheetalbenNileshbhaiSurti, RP No.1420 of 2012, decided on 16.9.2014 (NC).

8. Learned counsel further mentioned that there has been a delay of 48 days in filing the present revision petition. The reasons for delay have been explained in the application for condonation of delay. Apart from correspondence between the Lawyer and the Insurance Company, the main reason has been given post-pregnancy medical problems of the concerned counsel for which the medical certificate has also been filed. It was further mentioned that the orders of both the fora below are against the law and therefore, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that scope of the revision petition is very limited as fora below have given concurrent findings. He further stated that the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner does not mention any concrete cause of delay rather it only mentions the procedural delay and the sickness of the concerned Advocate. The learned counsel argued that a consumer forum has to decide the question of delay first and then any discussion on merits can take place. It was argued that the petitioner may have engaged another Lawyer if one Lawyer was not well to file the revis