STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 / 2022 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited through its Authorised Signatory Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Unit No. 601 and 602, 6^th Floor, Reliable Tech Park Cloud City Campus, Gate No. 31, Mauji Eltham Thane-Belapur Road, Airoli Navi Mumbai – 400 708 …… Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2 Versus

1. Sh. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Kailash Chandra R/o Mohalla Bambagher, Old Aabkari P.O. Ramnagar, District Nainital (Uttarakhand)

…… Respondent No. 1 / Complainant

2. Allahabad Bank Branch Ramnagar, District Nainital (Uttarakhand)

Service through its Branch Manager …… Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1 Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Shardul Negi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Sh. Ravinder Singh, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II Dated: 23/05/2023

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nainital (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 68 of 2019; Sh. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Allahabad Bank and another, by which the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellant – opposite party No. 2 to pay sum of Rs. 85,896/- to respondent No. 1 – complainant towards mediclaim amount along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment; Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The consumer complaint was, however, dismissed against respondent No. 2 –

opposite party No. 1 (bank).

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and perused the record.

3. According to office report dated 07.11.2022, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant after a delay of 121 days’.

4. The delay condonation application has been moved by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the accompanying affidavit to the delay condonation application, wherein it has been averred that the impugned judgment and order was passed by the District Commission on 25.05.2022, certified copy whereof was applied by learned counsel for the appellant before the District Commission on 26.05.2022, which was issued on the same day. The counsel has sent the certified copy of impugned judgment and order at the told address of the appellant, which was returned back to the counsel’s address. After telephonic conversation with the counsel, he has sent the same at the new address of the company, which was received on 29.07.2022. After receipt of certified copy of impugned judgment and order along with opinion of the defending counsel, the file was sent to Mumbai Office of the company, which came to be received there on 08.08.2022. The Mumbai Office of the company came to the conclusion that an appeal be filed against the impugned judgment and order. The Head Office of the company was shifted from old address – KLS Tower, Plot No. 94, MIDC Mahape, Navi Mumbai – 400 710, Maharashtra to Unit No. 601 and 602, 6^th Floor, Reliable Tech Park, Cloud City Campus, Gate No. 31, Mauji Eltham, Thane-Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708 and in this process, the counsel was not timely communicated about filing of appeal, with the result that the appeal could not be filed in time. The certified copy of the impugned judgment and order was not timely received by the company from their counsel. The file was handed over to the counsel at Dehradun for preparing the appeal. There is no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal.

5. Objections were filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 against the delay condonation application, stating that certified copy of impugned judgment and order dated