STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 08.07.2024 Reserved on : 06.05.2025 Date of Decision : 16.05.2025 Gurmeet Kaur W/o late Sh. Gursewak Singh S/o Jarnail Singh, R/o Village Chugha Kalan, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga, Punjab ….Appellant/Complainant Versus The Manager Claims, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Complex, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059 Maharashtra.

.…Respondent/OP First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga in C.C. No. 70 of 2022.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : None For the respondent : Sh. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Complainant-Gurmeet Kaur has filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby her Complaint had been dismissed.

2. The Complainant-Gurmeet Kaur filed the Complaint before the District Commission on the ground that her Husband-Gursewak Singh, was insured with OP under HDFC ERGO Group Personal Accidental Policy No. 2999201790009102000. It was alleged that one mini Tempo hit Gursewak Singh (the Complainant’s husband) on 01.01.2020 from the side while he was passing the bridge of Daudhar Canal, due to which he fell on the metalled road. He was taken to HMC Hospital by his brother Lakhwinder Singh and lateron discharged. On 28.01.2020, when Gursewak Singh was in his house, he died and the reason of his death was the injuries, he sustained in the road accident. The Complainant had filed the accidental death claim with the OP, which they repudiated on the ground that Post Mortem Report reflected that the death was due to Septicemia.

3. The District Commission after hearing the parties and going through the record, dismissed the Complaint by observing that the policy holder had not died due to any accidental injuries.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Appeal has been filed by the Complainant alongwith M.A. No. 770 of 2024 for Condonation of Delay. Delay of 185 days occurred in filing the Appeal. It was averred by the Complainant that on receiving the certified copy of the order on 25.11.2023, she approached the Counsel, who suggested to challenge the order before this State Commission, however, due to paucity of funds, she had failed to engage the Counsel at Chandigarh immediately. Lateron when she had arranged the funds, she contacted the Counsel at Chandigarh, who after going through the entire documents, had decided to file the Appeal. It was averred that it was settled law that no one should be condemned unheard and if the matter is ‘good on merits’, case should not be dismissed on ‘technical grounds’.

5. Whereas Mr. Manjot Singh Rai, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, has submitted that no satisfactory proof had been led by the Complainant to explain the cause of delay and it was necessary that each and every day delay had been explained. As the husband of the Complainant was working in Home Guard Service, therefore, it could not be presumed that she was not having funds to file the Appeal. No fee was required to be deposited, had the Appeal could be filed by the Complainant herself, without engaging any Counsel as her Complaint was dismissed. It was also not explained by the Complainant, from where she had arranged the funds to engage the Counsel. It has been held by the Superior Courts that no one can take benefit of his/her own wrong, while sleeping over their rights for long tim