Date of filing :16.05.2024 Date of order :13.01.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

MISCELLENEOUS APPLICTION NO. 403 of 2024 FIRST APPEAL NO. : 466 OF 2024 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 355 OF 2022 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : JALNA.

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,.

Through its Authorised Signatory, Sayantani Chakaraborty D/o Subrata Chakraborty, R/o Unit No. 601 & 602, 6^th floor, Reliable Tech Park, Cloud City Campus, Gate No.31, Mauje Eltham, Thane-Belapur road, Airoli, New Mumbai 400708 VERSUS Smt.Sonu w/o Shivaji Waghmare, R/o At Malkapur, Post Wadi(Budruk), Tq. Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna.

Present :- Adv.S.T.Agrawal for the appellant.

Adv.P.A.Kuber for the respondent.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

ORDER

(Delivered on 13/01/2026)

Per Mr.Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

This is a delay condonation application filed by the applicant/original opponent in C.C.No.335/2022 filed before the District Consumer Commission, Jalna. Ld. District Commission allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 28.07.2023 of non applicant/original complainant.

2. Applicant challenged the correctness and legality of the above order by filing first appeal No. 466/2024 before this Commission along with the present delay condonation application.

3. Heard Adv.S.T.Agrawal for applicant and Adv.P.A.Kuber for non applicant.

4. Ld. Adv.Agrawal for the applicant argued and submitted that, the judgment was passed on 28.07.2023 and its copy was received by advocate of appellant on 01.08.2023.Thereafter the copy of order was forwarded to their Mumbai office for legal opinion and approval for filing the appeal. After receipt of approval and legal opinion, the approval for deposit of statutory amount was taken from the finance department of appellant. The appeal was filed on 16.05.2024 after the delay of 245 days. The District Commission decided three complaints by a common judgment and only one copy was provided to appellant. Further it is submitted that, in absence of certified copy of order and due to administrative and procedural grounds delay of 245 day was caused for filing the appeal which is not intentional. Applicant prayed to condon the delay as there is merit in their case and every hope of success in it.

5. On the contrary Adv. Kuber for non applicant strongly objected and prayed to dismiss the delay condonation application. It is argued and submitted by him by way of his say that, the reasons given by applicant for delay shows the managerial inefficiency of applicant and therefore not reasonable, cogent, acceptable and justified. It is further submitted by him that, if such huge delay is condoned, it will not only adversely affect the very purpose of prescribing specific period of limitation in Consumer Protection Act but also the aim and object of ‘Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojna’ to provide immediate financial aid to the family of farmer who lost their life in an unfortunate incident.

6. As per record of the case, it appears that, the impugned judgment was passed on 28.07.2023 and its copy was received by advocate of applicant on 01.08.2023.The appeal was filed on 16.05.2024 after the delay of 245 days. It appears that, the delay was caused administrative and procedural grounds. The District Commission decided three complaints vide a common judgment and as per applicant only one copy of judgment was provided to them. However applicant could have applied for the other two certified copies immediately after receiving the first certified copy of order on 01.08.2023 but it appears that applicant did not do so. Despite of sufficient time to apply for another copy of order, applicant applied for certified copy when decided to file appeal and obtained it on 21.02.2024. Applicant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the applicant delayed so much for obtaining the certified copy of order. Also there is no relevant and reliabl