ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHYAM SUNDER AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed on 14.10.2004, against the order dated 28.8.2004, passed in Case No. 178/2001 by the District Consumer Forum, Sarguja, Ambikapur. As the appeal is time barred the appellant has also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has also filed an affidavit of Dr. R.K. Srivastava, Senior Divisional Manager of the appellant company.

(2.) THE reasons for delay assigned in the application is that after receipt of the copy of the impugned order on 30.8.2004 the file was sent by Ambikapur Branch Office on 6.9.2004 to the Divisional Office, Korba and then the same was sent by the Korba Office on 10.9.2004 to the Regional Office, Indore for obtaining permission for filing appeal. Thereafter the permission for filing appeal was communicated and the file was sent by the Regional Office to the Divisional Office, Korba vide letter dated 27.9.2004 and from the Divisional Office, Korba to the Bilaspur Division vide letter dated 30.9.2004 and thereafter from Divisional Office, Bilaspur vide letter dated 11.10.2004 to the Divisional Office, Raipur for filing appeal. The same was received at Raipur on 12.10.2004. It is averred in the application that appellant Corporation is a nationalised organisation and it has to follow prescribed procedure and under the procedure the Branch has to seek permission from the Divisional Office and the Divisional Office has to seek permission from the Regional Office and in special cases the Regional Office has to seek permission from the Central Office and it was due to this reason only that the delay was caused. After receiving permission the appeal has been filed. The appellant has stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not wilful but bona fide and deserves to be condoned.

(3.) A copy of the aforesaid application was sent to the respondent by Regd. Post A/D and it appears that the same has been served. However, none appeared for the respondent. Arguments of the appellant heard on the application for condonation of delay. Perused the record.