A.P. Sahi, President
The appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the order of the SCDRC, Madhya Pradesh dated 08.05.2023, whereby the State Commission has allowed the complaint of the respondent in respect of an insurance coverage of a vehicle, which the complainant alleged had suffered a total loss. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, but there is nothing on record to indicate that the claim was either repudiated or settled. The complaint was allowed against which the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. Learned counsel has also tendered written submission on 08.09.2026 along with a compilation of judgments referred to therein to buttress his submissions that have also been perused by us.
2. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 252 days by the Insurance Company. The explanation is given in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the delay condonation application, which are extracted herein under:
"4. Unfortunately, at the said period there were continuous change of the legal officers during that period a brief details of the changed legal officer in the office of appellant is as follows:
| Name of the Legal Officer | Employee Code | Last working day |
| Harshvardhan Singh | G03266 | 05-Dec-2022 |
| Chandramauli Dubey | G05234 | 25-Feb-23 |
| Safdar Ismil | G02683 | 15-May-23 |
| Jui Puranik | G05687 | 30May--23 |
| Siddharth Pandey | G05283 | 28-Jun-23 |
| Tanisha Sircar | G05959 | 03-Nov-23 |
| Rahul Chaudhary | G05778 | 23-Dec-23 |
5. That the directions for filing the appeal have been issued by the Appellants' Office in January 2024 and accordingly counsel has been directed to file appeal.
6. That for filing the appeal the appellant prepared a Demand Draft of amount of Rs.35,000/- State Bank of India on 17.01.2024.
7. That the Counsel located in Delhi had several discussions in the month of January 2024 and thereafter studied the file and drafted the appeal and sent the same to the officer in-charge of the case for finalization. Since appellant is not based in Delhi this took some time in February 2024."
3. Mr. Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant urged that this is a plausible explanation given the administrative machinery of the company, which is usual and consequently the delay condonation application should be allowed and the appeal deserves to be entertained.
4. He also urged on merits that the appellant Insurance Company was not bound to indemnify the claim as the complainant had not filed the bills in support of the estimated repair of the vehicle, the insurance claim whereof was in issue. He submits that in the absence of any details for any material to substantiate the claim, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claim. He submits that papers had been demanded, but the complainant had failed to provide the same and in such circumstances the Insurance Company was not bound to go by the surveyor's report as the complainant had failed to establish its claim.
5. Responding to the same Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent urged that the explanation for the delay given is absolutely frivolous and unacceptable. Merely because the employees or the legal officers kept on changing the same is no excuse, in as much as, the Insurance Company has other officials as well, who could have contacted their counsel, and filed the appeal within time. It is evident that the appeal came to be filed on 22.02.2024, whereas the order had been passed on 08.05.2023. According to the explanation given it is almost after seven months that the demand draft of the statutory pre-deposit of Rs.35,000/- was prepared and it is almost one and a half months thereafter that the appeal came to be instituted. It is therefore submitted that such a contention of frequent changes in management cannot be a ground to condone the delay. There is no day to day explanation to demonstrate a sufficient cuase.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited an order of a learned single Member of this Commission in the case of Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, II (2015) CPJ 147 (NC), paragraph 3 to urge that that in that case also the documents had been tendered by the petitioner to its legal officer who left services and the associate working with the counsel had also left the counsel's office. It is in such circumstances that the revision petition could not be filed timely and the same was filed with a delay of 151 days. It is urged that the delay was condoned in that case and the revision was entertained.
7. We may point out that the said decision was by a learned single Member and is not binding on us, but even otherwise it proceeded on its own facts. In the instant case it is evident from the disclosure made by the appellant that there were changes in the portfolio of the legal officers. It is not a case where the legal officers had resigned or had left or had abandoned the Insurance Company. Consequently the ratio of the decision cited by the learned counsel does not apply on the facts of the present case.
8. If the file had moved from one legal officer to another, the same cannot be a ground to condone the delay when it is also stated that the strategy could not be decided. The incompetence or inaction of the legal officers or the file not being attended to is no valid explanation for the delay in present the appeal.
9. As is evident from the arguments advanced the issue raised on merits is about non-filing of supporting documents in respect of the claim that the Insurance Company had not processed it. We do not find any repudiation letter on record. To the contrary we find that the Insurance Company had sent reminders to the complainant for sending the claim form and the repair estimates. The claim form has been sent together with the repair estimate of the vehicle and it appears that the said documents were available with the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, namely, Mr. H. K. Patil. The surveyor's report dated 16.09.2024 is on record. The same is extracted herein under:
10. The complaint no. 66 of 2014 seems to have been filed soon after the sending of the legal notice by the complainant on 14.08.2014. The survey report has appeared thereafter, but it records that the surveyor after going through the repair estimate had also physically inspected the vehicle and the report also records about the cause of incident as well. The surveyor has therefore assessed the loss in detail. There is neither any settlement or repudiation of the claim. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not bound by the report of the surveyor and that the company can arrive at its own assessment. The contention is that the Insurance Company had been requesting for documents, but the same was not supplied. The surveyor's report has empirically assessed the loss upon a physical inspection conducted by himself. The item-wise losses have been spilt together with description of the parts of the vehicle and the valuation thereof. There is nothing in this entire appeal to contest the said assessment made by the own surveyor of the appellant. The appellant has cited the decision of the Apex court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 7 SCC 787. The aforesaid decision in no way improves the case of the appellant.
11. It is also evident that the complainant had staked a claim of total loss of the insured value of the vehicle, but the State Commission after going through the record has allowed the complaint only to the tune of Rs.11,09,425/- which is the amount assessed by the surveyor. The complainant has not filed an appeal for any enhancement.
12. Having considered all the submissions raised we do not find any sufficient cause or any valid explanation given by the appellant to condone the delay. The explanation given seems to be clearly an excuse without any basis. The distinction between an excuse and an explanation has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, Paragraphs 30 to 32, which is as follows:
"30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.
32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."
Applying the ratio thereof we find that the explanation given is only an excuse and does not amount to an explanation.
13. While exercising the discretion in condoning the delay, the merit of a matter can be also looked into as observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare & Bros. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151, but in the instant case as discussed above there is hardly any substance in the contentions raised on the given facts where the Insurance Company has not even either processed or repudiated the claim for the past 12 years. There is hardly any justification for urging anything on merits as well. The decisions cited through the written submissions therefore do not come to the aid of the appellant on the given peculiar facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove. Thus the appeal does not deserve to be entertained.
14. The appellant had moved an application (IA/9436/2026) for early hearing and it is for the said reason that we had advanced the date of hearing on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant and have heard the matter finally.
15. For all the reasons hereinabove neither the delay is liable to be condoned nor does the appeal have any merits. The same is accordingly dismissed.