NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1241/2025 (Against the Order dated 13th December 2022 in Appeal SC/9/A/642/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/11395/2025 (AMENDMENT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY )

NC/IA/11396/2025 (ADDITIONAL FACT)

RITU TIWARI W/o. rajendra kumar tewari PERMANENT ADDRESS - B-177, AVAS VIKAS COLONY,CITYETAWAH,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Through its legal manager BUSINESS ADDRESS - VRINDAVAN, TOWER-2, 5TH FLOORSURESH MALL, M.G. ROAD , AGRA,UTTAR PRADESH.

RAJEEV KUMAR YADAV S/o. satyadev singh yadav PRESENT ADDRESS - 132, B, VIDYUT APAGRAHSANSTHANPOWER HOUSE, KUNAIRA, CITY , ETAWAH,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

AVNISH CHATURVEDI (Advocate)

DATED: 19/09/2025

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner contends that she purchased a vehicle in question on 30.01.2010 from the second respondent Mr. Rajeev Kumar Yadav, whereafter, the vehicle was transferred in her name. The Insurance policy of the vehicle, after getting the vehicle transferred, was got renewed with effect from 04.11.2010 to 04.11.2011. This insurance renewal was obtained through an agent, but erroneously the insurance coverage was issued in the name of the erstwhile owner.

3. The vehicle was stolen on 03.06.2011 and an FIR was lodged on 09.06.2011. The final report was submitted by the police on 16.09.2011 that the vehicle is not traceable and consequently the file may be closed. The Insurance Company declined to indemnify the said theft on the ground that the vehicle was insured in the name of the erstwhile owner.

4. Aggrieved the complainant filed CC/36/2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh and the said complaint was allowed on

27.02.2016.

5. The Insurance Company filed FA/642/2016 before the State Commission questioning the correctness of the same and the order of the District Commission has been reversed on 13.12.2022, holding that the police report had not been filed promptly and the Insurance Company was also tendered information beyond the stipulated period of 14 days. It was further held that the insurance stood in the name of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Yadav and consequently the complainant would have no insurable interest and hence the appeal was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved the complainant has come up in this revision petition, which is reported to be delayed by 914 days. The delay condonation application (IA/11396/2025) has been filed and the recital contained in paragraph 3 to 6 is as follows:

“3. That the delay in filing the present petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to unavoidable and compelling circumstances. Having received communication whatsoever concerning either the initiation of the case or the subsequent final ex-parte judgment delivered by the lower commission, the Petitioner was unaware of its existence. This petition is therefore filed immediately upon obtaining knowledge of the matter.

4. That an inadvertent delay of 914 Days in filling the Petition has been caused in the entire process elucidated hereinabove. That the said delay is not intentional.

5. That the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate and caused inadvertently and the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss in case delay is not condoned.

6. That due to the aforesaid reasons the applicant was not able to file the instant Petition within time for which he is fervently apologetic.”

7. Having considered the aforesaid averments regarding explanation of delay, we find that the only explanation given is that the petitioner had not received any communication whatsoever concerning the initiation of the case or even the subsequent final judgment, apart from this there is no other explanation. We do not find