IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Transfer - Transfer cannot be presumed or assumed on the basis of certain circumstances of the involvement of in lodging the police complaint.
(2) Entire Amount - There was a total loss of the vehicle and in these circumstances the Complainant is entitled for the entire amount claimed and covered as risk under the policy which was valid on the date of the accident and stood in favour of its owner namely the Complainant.

ORDER

I.A. No. 3481 of 2015 (for condonation of delay)

This appeal is reported to be delayed 178 days which was entertained on 12.05.2015 and notices were issued both on the appeal as well as on the delay condonation application. The case appears to have been listed for hearing at the admission stage itself without passing any formal order on the delay condonation application. It appears that the matter was adjourned during the COVID-19 pandemic period and the case was listed thereafter and to be taken up for final arguments on 30.08.2023.

2. Perused the delay condonation application, which has been objected by the leaned counsel for the opposite party-Insurance co. even though no formal objection to the same has been filed. The reasons given for the delay in the delay condonation application are that the appellant’s cousin passed away on 25.09.20214 and then he was busy in the hospitalization of his sister where he continued to attend her till 18.10.2014. He further states that he was involved in a legal battle with the Investor, Religare Finvest Ltd. as he was contesting an ex parte award in the arbitration proceedings. It is in these surrounding circumstances, he could not immediately rush to this Commission to file the appeal against the impugned Order dated 09.10.2014.

3. Having considered the said reasons given for the delay, the events on which reliance has been placed are almost prior to the impugned Order dated 09.10.2014. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it was on account of certain emotional circumstances and subsequent involvement that the appellant who is a layman could not realize the consequences of the delay and after being properly advised, he has filed this appeal without losing further time.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-Insurance co. however vehemently opposed this application for condoning the delay and has submitted that the appellant might have been under some difficulties but the same were after the impugned Order dated 09.10.2014. There is no plausible explanation and hence the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected.

5. In the light of these contentions, the reasons for condoning the delay may not be very clinching but nonetheless the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice and discretion should be exercised in such matters in order to advance the cause of justice and to draw the curtain on a litigation without denying accessibility to justice. The appellant also has a stable case on merits and even otherwise there is no lengthy inordinate or huge delay which may prevent this Commission to exercise its discretion in condoning the delay. There is one more reason as to why the delay deserves to be condoned, namely that the appeal was entertained in 2015 on the promise of being finally heard at the admission stage itself which could not be achieved for one reason or the other including the time period of two years during the COVID-19 pandemic. In such circumstances, the appellant deserves a lenient view. The attempt should be to advance the cause of justice and facilitate resolution of disputes and not avoid them on a narrow, restrictive approach.

6. Consequently, the delay of 178 days is, thus, condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be within time. Accordingly application I.A. No. 3481 of 2015 is allowed.

First Appeal No.379 of 2015

7. The appeal questions the correctness of the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 09.10.2014, whereby an insurance claim pertaining to the loss of a truck which was damaged on account of fire has been rejected and its repudiation by the Insurance co. has been upheld by the State Commission on the ground that the complainant did not have an insurable claim as he had ceased to be the owner on the date of accident as he had already sold off the vehicle to another person and, therefore, the insurance policy did not cover the claim as raised by the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the a