STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MIZORAM FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/15/FA/4/2025 (Against the Order dated 28th February 2025 in Complaint DC/261/CC/29/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Aizawl)

1. HEAD CLAIMS SBI LIFE INSU CO LTD MUMBAI 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER SBI LIFE INSU CO LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 1.NAVI MUMBAI 2.DAWRPUI,AIZAWLMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus C.ZIRNUNMAWII PRESENT ADDRESS - LUANGMUAL,AIZAWLAIZAWL,MIZORAM.

THE BRANCH MANAGER SBI DAWRPUI BRANCH BUSINESS ADDRESS - AIZAWL,MIZORAM.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. LALHMINGMAWIA , PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE MR. C. LALRINKIMA , MALE MEMBER MRS. PC. VANLALREMRUATI , FEMALE MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

JH RAMNEIHMAWIA (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SAIHMINGTHANGA SAILO (Advocate)

MARIA J. LALROHLUI (Advocate)

DATED: 13/10/2025

ORDER

1. The application is a condonation for filing an appeal after 66 days from the dateof order of the Aizawl District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mizoram (herein after called the District Commission) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. The District Commission passed a Judgement Order dated 28.02.2025 in CC No. 29. Of 2023. The appeal is filed after 66 days delay from the date of the order. In the appeal application, the Petitioner submitted that the impugned Judgement & Order was sent to Head Claims, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Central Processing Centre, 7^th Level (D Wing) and 8^th Level, Seawoods Grand Central, Tower II, Plot R1 Sector 40, Seawoods, Nerul Node, Navi Mumbai – 400706 on 04.03.2025 by way of postal service. The same was received by the Petitioner on 10.03.2025. The Legal Department of the Petitioner sought other law firm at Mumbai to further study the Judgement & Order as to whether it is suitable to be appealed before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission or not. The Appellant at Mumbai instructed the counsel for the Appellant at Aizawl to obtain photocopies of all evidences on record and all the Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. on 08.05.2025. The counsel of the Appellant could not apply for the relevant document of CC No. 29 of 2023 on 13.05.2015, due to absence of the President of the District Commission. The counsel was allowed to obtained copy of the relevant documents by the President of the District on 16.05.2025. However, the counsel of the Appellant was informed that the employees of the District Commission would have to search the whereabouts of the evidences, the counsel was assured and will be informed in due course. He was neither inform nor given any documents till date. Despite the counsel is unable to obtain documents, he was instructed to file the appeal on 05.06.2025. The condonation application along with appeal petition has been filed on 22.07.2025.

3. Notices were given to the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant and the Respondent No.

2 as well.

4. The Respondent No.1 objecting the condonation that there is unnecessary and intentional delay in filing the appeal. There is no evidence that they sent the Judgement & Order of the District Commission by postal service. The law firm that the Legal Department of the Petitioner consulted was not corroborated by the forwarding letter to prove that they approached the said law firm in Mumbai.

5. The Respondent No.2 also submitted that the Petitioner has not shown any reasonable or sufficient cause for the delay. The explanations offered are vague, general and not supported by contemporaneous documents to substantiate the reasons for delay. There are many electronic devices such as WhatsApp, email and others mode that made the communicating easier and faster and communication itself cannot be blamed.

6. We heard the learned counsels. The counsels of the Petitioner Mr. Dawngsangzela and Ms. Lalhmingliani supported the condonation application with the Hon’ble National Commission Order in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh vs Virendra Kumar RP/2663/2024 dated 22.10.2024 which held that:

“5. In