ORDER

THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1 . This petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party to receive the written version along with this petition by condoning the delay of 392 days in filing the same.

2. The main averments of the petitioner/opposite party is that the respondent/ complainant being a business woman is running private tours and travels in and around the States of Puducherry and Tamilnadu and for the purpose of his business development, she purchased an Omin Bus manufactured by the Ashok Leyland by assistance of Sundaram Finance and the said bus was registered with the Government of Puducherry by Registration No.PY-01-CN-5090 on 02.11.2016 and the said Omni Bus also insured with the petitioner/opposite party, insurance company for a sum of Rs.27,42,106.50 with third party insurance coverage. When the policy was in force, the insured vehicle met with an accident with Bulker Lorry nearby Ulundurpet in Villippuram District and on that accident 4 persons were died on the spot and the insured vehicle got fired and destroyed completely. Subsequently, insurance claim was made by the respondent/complainant with the opposite party and the claim was repudiated by the petitioner/opposite party and thereby consumer disputes arose between them which resulted in filing of a consumer complainant against the petitioner/opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against them before this Commission in C.C.No.29/2019 by claiming direction to the petitioner/opposite party to settle the claim of the insured amount and other reliefs totaling a sum of Rs.49,00,000/-.

3. The petitioner/opposite party has also averred in their affidavit that they had appeared through their advocate before this Commission on 09.08.2019 and subsequently the complaint was posted for filing their written version on 12.09.2019 and they were unable to attend the proceedings on that date itself and did not file their written version within time and since now they seek permission to file their written version with a delay of 392 days in filing the written version for the reasons that the entire file regarding the claim made by the complainant was available with their Head Office at Calcutta as the claim fell within their financial authority of the said office and the same could not be easily traced out as the concerned claim file got misplaced among other files in another department and further the officer who was dealing with the file left the service of the company on superannuation and subsequently after the strenuous efforts the file was traced out during the recent review meetings and therefore they could not file their written version on the particular date itself. Further, the petitioner has stated that the written version could not be drafted solely based on the documents submitted by the respondent/complainant along with the complaint as the same were insufficient to prepare the written version and therefore written version could not be prepared and filed before this Commission on the particular date itself and in this manner a delay of 392 days caused in filing the written version which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the above-stated bonafide reasons and therefore, the petitioner prays this Commission to receive the written version filed along with this petition after condoning the delay of 392 days in filing the same.

4. After receipt of copy of this petition, the counsel on record for the respondent/complainant has made an endorsement stating that he has no objection to allow this petition. Even though the respondent/complainant has made no objection, this Commission has discretionary powers to decided the petition on merits after having taken into account of the material records and a significant decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made in the case of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., - Vs – Hilli Mul