STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH, KOLHAPUR Misc. Application in Appeal No. SC/27/A/24/533 (Arisen from order passed by Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satara in CC No. 369/2022 dated 12/12/2023)

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Sr. Divisional Manager, Division Office, 601/602, 6^th Floor, Reliable Tech Park, Cloud City Campus, Gate No.31, Mouje Eltham, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, New Mumbai – 416 708 …. APPLICANT Vs.

1) Smt. Shobha Santosh Nalavade R/o Navadi, Tal. Patan Dist. Satara

2) District Agricultural Office, Satara (Statistical Department)

Administrative Building, Behind S.T. Stand, Hajeri Maal, Satara 415 001 .... RESPONDENTS BEFORE :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, President Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member Present : Adv. B.B. Barbole the Applicant Adv. Sadhana M. Patil for the Respondent No.1.

None for Resp.No.2

ORDER

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in Consumer Complaint No. 369/22 decided on 12^th December, 2023, by the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satara, the appellant has filed the appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay. The applicant has contended that there is a delay of 269 days. It is also contended that the Hon’ble District Commission, Satara has passed order as on 12^th December 2023 and the certified copy of the order was received by the applicant as on 22^th December 2023. The limitation for filing the appeal commenced on 12^th December 2023 which was expired on 11^th January 2024. The appeal was filed as on 18^th October 2024. The applicant has contended that the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period as the agreement regarding the Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Scheme was made in December 2019 to December 2020, The corona pandemic started in the month of March 2020 and the lockdown period started on 25^th March 2020. Due to lockdown period, the office of the applicant company was burdened with a heavy work. The present applicant was acting through its executives and having head office at Mumbai. It ought to have considered that time gets consumed to communicate with concerned advocates and departments regarding information and documents of the case and to send and receive communications. Thereafter, Advocate has prepared the draft of appeal memo for approval. That was approved by the concerned authorities after completing all the formalities and then appeal is filed by the appellant alongwith delay condonation application for condoning the delay of 269 days.

2. After hearing on admission of the present appeal, the notice was issued to the Respondents. The Resp.No.1 appeared and objected to the present application stating that the original complaint was filed for seeking relief against the present appellant under the Scheme “Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana”. The Resp.No.1 is a poor person. There is no sufficient and cogent reason given in the present applicant. Therefore, the present application be dismissed with cost. 3. After hearing both the sides’ arguments, it is observed that according to the applicant, the delay has occurred due to the administrative reasons and the delay was not intentional and it was beyond their control. However, except making blank averments regarding administrative delay, no specific or satisfactory explanation has been provided by the applicant for the entire period of delay. No sufficient grounds are shown for condoning the delay. The law is well settled that sufficient cause has to be explained for the entire delay caused in filing the appeal. Mere administrative lapses cannot be a valid ground for condoning the delay without proper justification. The Supreme Court in case Office of Chief Post Master General, Vs. Living Media India Ltd. reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563 has held that, “it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable expl