State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Rakesh Kumar And Anr. on 12 November, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.1225 of 2021
in/and
Revision Petition No.30 of 2021
Date of institution : 02.11.2021
Date of Decision : 12.11.2021
1. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Near HDFC
Bank, Jalandhar Road, Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur -
143505
2. The Head Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport
Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006
Present Revision Petition is being filed through Sh. Amit Khanna,
Manager-Legal & Compliance, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
SCO-215-216-217, 4th Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh-160022
....Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2&3
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. Kapil Dev, resident of Androon Pahari
Gate, Batala at present H. No.B-25/19, Qila Mandi, Tehsil Batala,
District Gurdaspur-143505
...Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. The Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Umarpura, Tehsil
Batala, District Gurdaspur-143505
....Respondent No.2/OP No.1
Misc. Application for condonation of
delay.
In/and
Revision Petition against the order
dated 04.02.2020 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Revision Petition No.30 of 2021 2 Present:-
For the petitioners : Ms.Rupali, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT :
Proceedings have been conducted through Video Conference as well as physically due to pandemic of COVID-19.
2. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners (in short, "OPs No.2&3") to challenge the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur, whereby the petitioners/OPs No.2&3 have been proceeded exparte. A separate application for condonation of delay of 547 days has been filed by the petitioners alongwith the revision petition.
3. At the very outset a request has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for withdrawl of the present revision petition stating that this Revision Petition has been filed inadvertently as earlier Revision Petition No.36 of 2020 filed against the same order dated 04.02.2020, which was dismissed by this Commission but it was not in the notice of the present counsel.
4. The copy of the order dated 09.11.2020 passed in Revision Petition No.36 of 2020 titled "The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & Anr." is before us which was earlier dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 09.11.2020. Neither it has been mentioned in the Revision Petition nor any reason has been stated. Simply by saying that it was inadvertent mistake of the earlier counsel and accordingly a request for withdrawal of present revision petition has been made. In case the factum of dismissal of earlier Revision Petition No.30 of 2021 3 revision petition was brought to the notice of the concerned counsel, it was the duty of the petitioners to disclose this fact.
5. It cannot be said to be a mistake of the present counsel as the earlier petition was filed by some other lawyer. However, the petitioner party was well aware about the filing of the earlier petition, still nowhere it has been mentioned that earlier petition was dismissed. Moreover, nothing has been said as to how the present counsel came to know about the earlier revision petition as nowhere in the petition, it has been mentioned that earlier revision petition was dismissed on merits. Subsequent petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable as remedy was to challenge the order before the Appellate Court/Authority. Even on the asking of this Commission, the copy of the order has not been shown to the Commission.
6. There is delay of 547 days in filing the revision petition and nothing has been mentioned in the grounds of application for condonation of delay except the reason of extension of time by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission. However, it is mentioned in para No. 6 of the grounds of revision petition that the petitioners were not aware about the proceeding of exparte and thereafter the present petition was filed. The revision petition has been supported by an affidavit. It is surprisingly that the petitioner was not aware about the proceeding. In case the earlier petition on the same cause of action was filed and dismissed thereafter, it might be in the knowledge of the petitioners, may not be in the knowledge of the present counsel as the earlier counsel was different. The petitioners might have signed the affidavit. Nothing has Revision Petition No.30 of 2021 4 been submitted as to how the present petition is maintainable when earlier petition was dismissed on merits. He has not only concealed the factum of earlier petition and dismissal thereof but wrong affidavit has been filed. Meaning the petitioners/OPs are playing hide and seek with this Commission.
7. It is well settled law that the petitioner, who approaches the Commission for any relief should come with all facts and details. If any material facts are intentionally suppressed, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
8. In case there are suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the intention of the party is to take undue advantage by filing the revision petition without mentioning about the filing of the earlier petition and dismissal thereof. In case any party does not disclose full facts or suppresses the relevant material or are otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the revision petition without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of law by deceiving it. In case material facts are not clearly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the Courts become impossible as has been held in the judgment of the case titled "Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India", (2007) 8 SCC 449.
9. In another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme, in case "K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others", (2008) 12 SCC 481, it has been held that the petitioner while approaching the Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the relevant facts Revision Petition No.30 of 2021 5 before the Court without concealing/suppressing anything for seeking appropriate relief. In case there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts, the party is guilty of misleading the Court and his petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. This judgment was reiterated in another case titled "G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others", (2009) 3 SCC 141. Same view was held in judgment of Calcutta High Court in case "Khan Mohamad Khan & Ors. Vs. Jam Mohammad Khan" in C.O. No.1419 of 2015, decided on 11.06.2015.
10. In view of the ratio of the said judgments as well as the facts as discussed above, there is not only suppression of material facts in filing other revision petition, which was dismissed on merits but nowhere in the revision petition it has been mentioned that earlier revision petition was filed and the same was dismissed on merits. Accordingly, it can safely be said that the fault is not of the counsel, who has filed the subsequent revision petition as earlier petition filed by some other counsel was dismissed. Rather it is fairness on the part of the arguing counsel, who has disclosed this fact at the initial stage of arguments that earlier petition, filed by the other counsel had already been dismissed on merits. Thereafter, a query was put as to how the 2nd petition on the same cause of action and under the circumstances when earlier petition was dismissed on merits, is maintainable. Counsel for the petitioners is unable to answer the query. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioners for suppressing/not disclosing the material facts of Revision Petition No.30 of 2021 6 filing of earlier revision petition against the same impugned order. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund Account of this Commission, within two weeks from today.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER November 12, 2021.
as Revision Petition No.30 of 2021 7