Dismissed

Sri Ram Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/13232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking to revive a First Appeal before the NCDRC. The High Court rejected the petitioner's explanation of illness to condone a delay of nearly four years, noting the unexplained delay in preferring the original application and the availability of other legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. Pending applications are disposed of.

Sri Ram Singh Vs Life Insurance Corporation of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13232/2018 and CM APPL. 51464/2018 & 51465/2018

¶4

SRI RAM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Sangita Rai, Mr Kunwar Jai Singh, Mr Rajkishor Chaudhary and Mr Himanshu, Advocates.

¶5

versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC/R-1 to 4.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶8

¶9

07.12.2018

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning an order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the petitioner’s application for revival of the First Appeal (Appeal No. 211/2007) was rejected.

¶11

The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner’s wife (Smt Maya Singh). She expired on 04.12.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any steps for placing her legal heirs on record. The petitioner filed an application on 15.09.2010 after a delay of 554 days. The petitioner also filed an application seeking condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1/2012). The petitioner’s explanation for the delay was that he was bed ridden and was undergoing treatment for Pemphigus Vulgaris since September 2008. The said application was rejected by an order dated 22.02.2015, which is impugned in the present petition. The NCRDC noted that the petitioner was not the only legal heir to her wife; she was also survived by a daughter and

¶12

two sons and there was no impediment in them moving an application for bringing the legal heirs on record.

¶13

It is seen that the present petition has also been filed after a period of almost four years. The petitioner’s explanation for the said delay remains the same; that is, he was undergoing the treatment for Pemphigus Vulgaris. This Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid explanation. First of all there is no explanation why the other legal heirs could not file an application/petition. Further, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner could not arrange for the petition to be filed as he has now done.

¶14

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending applications are also disposed of.

¶15

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶16

DECEMBER 07, 2018 RK

Sri Ram Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ram Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi Transport Corporation through Its Chairman Vs Anil Kumar

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Lekh Raj and Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ganga Saran & Ors.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ram Chander & Anr.

B. K. Tripathi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kanijan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Ors.

Mgmt. of Cantonment Board Merr Vs Preetam Singh

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shailesh Gupta Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shiv Pujan Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Harpal Singh and Anr. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Ms. Anju Kaushal Vs Dvb Employees Terminal Benefits and Ors.

Citius Real Estate (P) Limited Vs Collector of Stamps/Sdm (Hq)