NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ANITA RAJABHAU KHISTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE heard Advocate Mr.M.M. Ambhore for appellant and Advocate Mr. D.A. Hatkar for respondent at length on the point of delay condonation application and on merit also.

(2.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 2.7.2010 passed by the District Forum,ParbhaniinC.CNo.115/2010whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite party National Insurance Company was directed to pay amount Rs 1,00,000 compensation about the accidental death of husband of complainant. According to the appellant copy of the order was received on 14.7.2010 and then the dealing Advocate had given his opinion regarding the said judgment and order to the applicant company on 20.7.2010 and suggested to prefer an appeal. He had then forwarded the same along with file of the applicant company with the said judgment and order to its Regional Office, Pune for seeking the necessary opinion of the office. The Regional Office, Pune after going through opinion and the entire file pertaining to the said judgment and order, decided to prefer an appeal before this Commission. The file has been forwarded by the Regional Office of this appellant company on 28.7.2010. The file was then handed over to the Advocate on 5.9.2010. At that time the certified copy was not available and therefore the Counsel could not file the appeal. Hence the delay of 72 days is caused in filing the appeal.

(3.) IT is noted that as from the contention of the appellant, the copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 2.7.2010 was received on 14.7.2010 and thereafter for the legal opinion the same was forwarded on 20.7.2010 to Regional Office, Pune. The same has been forwarded by the Regional Office to the appellant company on 28.7.2010. The appellant company handed over the file to the Advocate to prefer an appeal before Commission on 5.9.2010 i.e. after more than 30 days. There is no explanation of the appellant company why this delay of about 30 days is caused in handing over the file to his Advocate. When all the papers were ready on 5.9.2010 the appeal is not filed within a month and came to be filed on 15.10.2010 i.e. more than 38 days. It is further submitted by the appellant that after receipt of the file on 5.9.2010 due to non availability of certified copy of impugned judgmentand order appeal could not be filed. It is to be noted that the certified copy is filed on record at page No. 43 reveals that the first copy was issued to the appellant on 9.7.2010. There is no material to show that the certified copy was not available to the appellant Counsel on 5.9.2010 as stated Advocate Mr. Ambhore further submitted that after receipt of the paper, as the certified copy was notavailable he has to collect it and therefore caused delay. However, assuming the fact that appellant company has received papers on 5.9.2010 he has not disclosed the date on which certified copy was received. In fact copy was already received on 14.7.2010. We therefore found that the delay is not properly explained. Application for condonation of delay is therefore needs to be rejected. We have heard the Counsel on the merit of the appeal as submitted by the Counsels. Claim of the complainant is repudiated on the ground that the driving licence and other papers were not received by the Insurance Company. The learned Forum has observed that as per Government circular there is no essential that the agriculturist has to produce own driving licence. Advocate Ambhore submitted that as per the circular issued by the Government on 29 May, 2009 it is necessary that when the agriculturist died duem to any accident he should have valid driving licence. We have perused this copy of the circular and found that circular is dated 29.5.2009 and there is amendment in the circular that if the agriculturist died due to motor vehicle accident he should have valid driving licence. However, it is also clear that this Yojna is in force in the State in the year 2008 - 2009. The date of accidental death of husband of the complainant is 22.2.2007. This clause of valid driving licence is not applicable in the present case. As such we found that even on merit the appellant has no case. Hence,