STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION DAILY ORDER Miscellaneous Application No. MA/485/2022 In .

Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs. Jiniben Rajabhai Hadiya and Others BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. R. N. MEHTA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT:

Dated : 03 Feb 2023

ORDER

Dismissed on 3^rd Feb-2023 IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE OF GUJARAT COURT NO.5 CMA no. 485 of 2022 APPLICANT: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

VS RESPONDENT: Jiniben R. Hadiya CORUM: Mr. R.N. Mehta, Presiding Member Appearance: Mr. R.P. Raval Advocate for Applicant Ms. S.M. Rana Advocate for Respondent (By Mr. R.N. Mehta, Dt.03/02/2022)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied to the order dated 23^rd October 2019 of District Commission Junagadh, in Complaint No.62 of 2019. The applicant herein wants to prefer appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, there is delay of 1097 days and therefore to condone such delay the application has been moved.

Heard Mr.R.P. Raval, he submits that as such the complaint was proceeded exparty against the present appellant and therefore the applicant was unaware about the passing of any such order. The applicant than moved an application before the District Commission for certified copy of the order on 3^rd October 2022 and on the same date, copy of the order was provided.

The applicant has made following averment in the application:

1. The applicant states that the order is of 23/10/2019 and was received by the insurance company recently only when an execution petition was filed. The applicant states that the said appeal was required to be filed on or before

22/11/2019.

2. However, there is a delay of around 1097 days on the part of applicant to file the present application for the very reason that the order in the consumer complaint was exparty and it came to know about the same while attending Execution proceedings.

3. Moreover, the Head Office also took some time in obtaining the legal opinion from the advocate usually represent the case before the Hon’ble commission.

4. That the applicant also took some time in obtaining the demand draft for appeal fees. As soon as the DD was ready, it was forwarded to the advocate who was going to represent the case before the Hon’ble Commission.

5. The applicant immediately then forwarded the file to the advocate who represents the company at the Hon’ble State Commission for filing the appeal on or around October 2^nd week of 2022. The advocate for the applicant immediately prepared the appeal memo and provided to the applicant for signature on 12/10/2022.

Bare perusal of the aforesaid application do not speaks when the free copy of the order was received by the applicant. It is not mentioned in the application that they have not received even free copy from the District Commission. Under such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the appellant applicant has not received the copy of the order. The impugned order was passed in October 2019 much prior to Covid condition prevailing in India. Even the limitations also had expired in 2019 only. Therefore, relaxation of the Covid condition cannot be given to the applicant.

As such there is no explanation about the step that has been taken by the applicant for minimization of delay. The law provides for limitation period for 30 days whereas the delay is of 1097 days to say about 30 times more than the limitation period prescribed and though there is no sufficient and satisfactory explanation given in the application. Therefore it cannot be said that the applicant was prevented for preferring appeal for a cause which can be said a sufficient cause in law. I have also gone through the final order passed by the District Commission and considering smallness of amount do not feet proper to exercise discretionary power. Hence, following order is passed.

ORDER

a. I do not find any reason to interfere in order of District Commission as there is no sufficient cause and therefore also I am not inclined to condone such a gross delay.

a. Hence,