ORDER

This Appeal has a chequered history and it has been heard primarily on the reported delay of 2250 days in the filing of the Appeal. The Appellant has pleaded that this delay is of only 1497 which deserves to be condoned in the light of the background of the case, its merits and the circumstances that have led to the delay.

2. The Appeal has been filed against the order of the State Commission, Jharkhand dated 16.02.2018 in CC/33/2017 filed by the Appellant which is extracted hereinunder:

“Dated:16.02.2018

Order

No body appears for the Complainant. Mr. Ashutosh Anand submits that he has already filed Written Statement and the Complainant is required to file evidences and/or further documents that may be required. However, today there is no appearance on behalf of the Complainant.

Let it be recorded that the Complainant is not appearing right from 6.11.2017 onwards. This was recorded on 23.1.2018 and subsequently on 6.2.2018 learned counsel for the Complainant made a magical appearance and prayed for one weeks’ time to file Rejoinder. We granted such time but today when the matter has been called out, the Complainant has chosen to go back to sleep. We are not inclined to go on waiting at the whims of the Complainant to appear whenever they chose to do. We accordingly, Dismiss this case for non-prosecution.”

3. It is for this reason that the delay of 2220 has been reported from the date of the said order.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also invited the attention of the matter to the facts and the background to urge that it was on account of an improper conduct of the Counsel of the Appellant that led to this delay, coupled with the intervention of the pandemic from March 2020 till 2022, the pendency of the Writ Petition filed before the Jharkhand High Court against the above quoted order and its dismissal on 10.01.2024 with a direction to file an appeal before this Commission and finally the health conditions of the Appellant coupled with the time taken for obtaining legal assistance to file the appeal before this Commission. Apart from this, learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Bench to the merits of the claim to contend that given the facts, the Complaint deserves to be appreciated on merits inasmuch as the Appellant has been denied a genuine claim arising out of an Insurance Policy.

5. The Complainant/Appellant owned a truck/trailer that was a goods carrier and had been insured with the Respondent Insurance Co., the duration whereof according to the Appellant was from 09.06.2015 to 08.06.2016. The vehicle collided with another trailer on the fateful day that is 15.03.2016 and the colliding vehicles caught fire resulting in the death of the drivers of the vehicles. An FIR bearing case no.60/2016 was registered at Police Station, Tilaya, Jharkhand. The Complainant alleges that he staked his claim for the loss before the Insurance Co. but he was informed that his policy was forged and fake. Aggrieved, the Complainant’s son lodged a criminal complaint against the Insurance Agent and the branch Manager of the Insurance Co. before the learned CGM Hazaribag, Jharkhand on 29.08.2016 that was registered as Criminal Complaint No.1181/2016.

6. The Complainant further sent a legal notice to the Insurance Co. on 16.03.2017 contending that the Insurance policy had been reconstructed on 17.03.2016 itself and therefore there was no reason to inform that the policy papers were forged. The Appellant has pointed out that after receipt of this legal notice, the Insurance Co. repudiated the claim on 11.05.2017 by the following letter.

“Ref No. H2/311/115716

Date 11/05/2017

Kameshwar Mehta

S/o-Sri Indo Mahto

Po/Vill - Saraiya,

Via - Padma,

Dist-Hazaribag,

Jharkhand - 825411

Mob-9430782912, 7549047281

Dear Sir,

Ref: Claim No - 36618133

Policy No-97084277

Vehicle No-1H02AG 9315

Re: Non admissibility of Claim

We regret to note the reporting of loss pertaining to the captioned policy. It