BANSAL ROADLINES Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is directed against the Order dated 13.7.92 passed by the State Commission, Delhi accepting the claim made by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and directing the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 1,64,105/- which amount had been paid by complainant No. 1 to complainant No. 2 M/s. Easter (India) Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. The State Commission also directed the payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 2.1.89 till the date of payment besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to notice the facts as the appeal is clearly barred by time since it has been filed after a delay of 191 days. The appeal came up for hearing before this Commission on 24th March, 1995 when it was stated by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant that his client did not receive any copy of the order passed by the State Commission till 11th February, 1993 on which date he is said to have been informed by the Counsel for the opposite party that an adverse order had been passed against the appellant by the State Commission. In view of the categoric statement made in the affidavit of the Appellant and during the submissions made before this Commission by the Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant was not served with any copy of the State Commission's order, it had become necessary to call for a report from the State Commission, Delhi as to whether or not a copy of the impugned order dated 13.7.92 passed in Case No. C/254/91 on its file had been communicated by registered post to M/s. Bansal Roadlines which was the opposite party in the said case or to their Advocate.

(3.) IT is manifest from the above report that the copy of the order was given dasti to the Advocate of the Appellant on 14.8.92 and the appeal should thereafter have been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days. The Appellant has with malafide intention withheld from the affidavit this factual information that the copy of the order was given dasti to the Advocate of the Appellant on 14.8.92. Although the appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, we do not find any sufficient cause as the Appellant tried to over-reach this Commission by concealing the fact of the receipt of the order dasti by the Counsel of the appellant on 14.8.92. The appeal is dismissed as barred by time with no order as to costs.