← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/13232/2018

Sri Ram Singh v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ORS.

2018-12-07Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru2 pages

$~69 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 13232/2018 and CM APPL. 51464/2018 & 51465/2018 SRI RAM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms Sangita Rai, Mr Kunwar Jai Singh, Mr Rajkishor Chaudhary and Mr Himanshu, Advocates.

versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Kamal Mehta, Advocate for LIC/R-1 to 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 07.12.2018 1.

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. 2.

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

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

3.

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. 4.

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

VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 07, 2018 RK