SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3262

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Through its AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE – Appellant
Versus
CHHABILAL HANDRA S/o. RAMKUMAR CHANDRA – Respondent
NC/SA/845/2025



Petitioner Advocates:AMOL SHIROLKAR ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

SECOND APPEAL NO. 845 OF 2025

(Against the Order dated 28/06/2024 in FA No. 117 of 2024 of the State Commission,

Chhattisgarh)

WITH

IA/15017/2025(for grant of stay) IA/15018/2025 (Condonation of delay compliance of

order) & IA/15019/2025 (Exemption from dim documents)

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant

Versus

Chhabilal Handra ....Respondent

BEFORE:

HONBLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER

For Appellant : Appearance not marked

Datedj 23-12-2025

ORDER

1. As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 427 days in

filing this Second Appeal. Accordingly IA/15018/2025 has been filed by

the Appellant seeking Condonation of delay.

2. In the said Application, the learned counsel for the Appellant has

stated following grounds for the delay in filing of the instant Appeal:

That the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 was not

communicated to the Appellant by the panel Advocate

engaged before the State Commission. The Appellant was

repeatedly assured that the First Appeal was pending

adjudication, and relying upon such representations, did not

make independent enquiries.

4. That in the first quarter of 2025, the said Advocate began

evading communication and continued to maintain that the

appeal was pending. It was only in May 2025-after nearly

eleven months-that the Appellant was informed of the

dismissal of the First Appeal on 28.06.2024. The Advocate

##PAGE2##

further disclosed that the certified copy of the order had been

misplaced by his office.

5 That upon receiving this information, the Appellant

immediately sought legal advice from another counsel, who

was engaged to obtain the certified copy of the impugned

order. The application for certified copy was filed on

05.06.2025 and the copy was supplied on 10.06.2025. Acting

on further legal advice, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition

before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on

18.06.2025.

6. That the Writ Petition was withdrawn on 11.07.2025 with

liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under law. The Hon'ble

High Court was pleased to permit withdrawal. Thereafter, the

Appellant sought fresh legal opinion and internal approval

from the competent authority, which occasioned further delay

in filing the present Second Appeal.

7. That the Appellant was bona fide prosecuting the matter

before the Hon'ble High Court under mistaken legal advice.

The subject matter of the Writ Petition and the present Second

Appeal is identical, and the Appellant was diligently pursuing

the remedy in good faith. The delay is neither wilful nor due to

negligence but attributable to circumstances beyond the

Appellant's control, including non-cooperation by the earlier

Advocate and incorrect legal guidance.

8. That the Appellant seeks exclusion of time spent in

prosecuting the Writ Petition under Section 14 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, which permits exclusion of time spent in

proceedings bona fide pursued in a forum without

jurisdiction. The Appellant further seeks condonation of delay

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which empowers this

Hon'ble Commission to condone delay upon sufficient cause

being shown.

9. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that

a liberal and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in

condoning delay. Reliance is placed on the following

decisions:

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107

N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123

Consolidated Engineering v. Principal Secretary, (2008) 7

SCC 169

##PAGE3##

10. The Appellants therefore submits that the Second Appeal

may kindly be admitted on condoning the delay.

3. In the First Appeal, the State Commission passed the Impugned

Order on 28.06.2024. The limitation for filing the Second Appeal before

this Commission is 30 days. However, the same would commence from

the date of receipt of the Order by the Appellant i.e. 28.06.2024, while

the limitation lapsed on 27.07.2024, the present

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top