State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi vs Smt. Priyanka Pathak on 6 December, 2017
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVISION PETITION NO.62 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 12.07.2017 passed in C.C.No.31/2017 by the District Forum, Damoh) 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, A.D.B. BRANCH, OPPOSITE PITAMBAR BUDHWANI, STATION ROAD, DAMOH (M.P.) THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, RBO-6 KILLAI NAKA, JABALPUR SAGAR ROAD, DAMOH (M.P.) ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. SMT. PRIYANKA PATHAK, W/O SHRI DEVKANT PATHAK, R/O M/18, VAISHALI NAGAR, DAMOH (M.P.) 2. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD, CPC, KAPAS BHAWAN, PLOT NO.3A, SECTOR-10, CBD BELAPURA, NAVI MUMBAI-400 614 3. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. BUS STAND, KILLAI NAKA ROAD, OPPOSITE SARASWATI SHISHU MANDIR, DAMOH (M.P.) 4. SHRI DEVKANT PATHAK, S/O SHRI BRIJBHUSHAN PATHAK, R/O M/18, VAISHALI NAGAR, DAMOH (M.P) ... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Vikas Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3.
None for the respondent no.1 and 4 though served.-2-
O R D E R (Passed On 06.12.2017) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri S. D. Agarwal, Member:
The opposite party no.1 and 2, the State Bank of India have filed this revision against the order dated 12.07.2017 passed in C.C.No.31/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Damoh whereby their application for extension of time for filing reply to complaint was rejected and right to file reply to complaint was closed.
2. The facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant/respondent no.1 are that she had filed a complaint against the petitioner SBI and SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. before the Forum on 23.03.2017 alleging deficiency in service. She alleged that her mother Smt. Chandravali Gautam along with respondent no.4 Shri Devkant Pathak availed housing loan of Rs.20,40,000/-. It was alleged that an amount of Rs.8225/- was debited to the loan account in respect of life insurance of Smt. Chandravati Gautam and for that purpose SBI Rinn Raksha Policy was issued. Smt. Chandravati died on 31.05.2016, the claim was lodged with the SBI Life Insurance Company Limited but the same was not paid. It was informed by the insurance company that the insurance cover was in respect of life of respondent no.4 Shri Devkant Pathak. The respondent no.1/complainant therefore filed a complaint claiming that entire outstanding loan has to be paid, Rs.40,000/- paid by the respondent should be refunded along with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost Rs.25,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that though the counsel for petitioner appeared on 20.04.2017 and sought time to file reply. Since on 20.04.2017, the copies of documents annexed with the complaint were provided, therefore 30/45 days to file reply as per provisions of the Act will commence from that date. Learned counsel submits that it is true that on 20.04.2017, 18.05.2017, 08.06.2017, 22.06.2017 and 28.06.2017 petitioner sought time to file reply. He further argued that on 28.06.2017 time was sought to file reply on the ground that counsel for petitioner was having some eye problem therefore, he could not draft the reply. Medical report was also submitted but the Forum vide order dated 12.07.2017 dismissed the application and closed the right to file reply. Counsel submits that on 12.07.2017 in his application it has been very specifically mentioned that due to heavy rains, counsel could not reach the Forum in time and as the rains stopped, Counsel reached Forum for submitting reply but by that time the Forum -3- closed the right to file reply. He submits that delay is bonafide and reply should be taken on record. He argued that the petitioner has a good defense and if they are not provided an opportunity to defend the case, they will suffer irreparable loss.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and examined the material available on record.
5. On perusal of record available, I find that the complaint was filed on 23.03.2017, notices were issued to opposite parties including petitioner and the date was fixed 20.04.2017. On that day counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 sought time to file reply. Again on 18.05.2017 time was sought for filing reply and the case was fixed on 08.06.2017. On 08.06.2017 again time was sought and last opportunity was given. On the next date i.e. on 22.06.2017 SBI Life insurance filed reply along with affidavit and documents, however, counsel for petitioner again sought time to file reply. The case was then fixed on 28.06.2017. On that date counsel for petitioner again sought time to file reply and an application for adjournment on the ground of ill health along with medical certificate was filed. The case was then fixed on 12.07.2017 for consideration of his application. On 12.07.2017 their application for grant of time was dismissed and the right to file reply to complaint was closed. Therefore, the present revision against the said order.
6. On perusal of certified copies of order sheets, I find that it is true that on 20.04.2017 copies of documents annexed with the complaint were provided to counsel for opposite parties, therefore, the time to file reply will run from that date only. It is admitted that extension in time for filing reply/written version was granted to the petitioner till 28.06.2017. However, on 28.06.2017 counsel for petitioner sought time to file reply on the ground of ill health. It is clear from record that reply/written version could not be filed by that date on some pretext or the other. Now it has to be seen that whether further time can be granted to the petitioner to file reply/written version at this belated stage. During arguments learned counsel for petitioner has argued that though the reply/written version has already been filed on 12.07.2017 but since right to file reply/written version was closed, therefore the same was not taken on record.
7. The issue involved in the present case has been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases decided from time to time. In their order dated 04.12.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 "New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilli -4- Multi-Purpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.", the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that extension of time beyond 45 days could be granted. However, vide order dated 11.02.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 1083-84 of 2016 "M/S Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Venezia Buyers Association (Regd)", the matter has been referred to a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed another order dated 10.02.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2017 "Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr Vs M/S Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.in which it has been ordered:
"We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will be open to the concerned Fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs, and to proceed with the matter."
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the version of the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed reply/written version before the Forum on 12.07.2017, I deem it appropriate that the petitioner be allowed to file reply/written version before the Forum within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and if the reply/written version had already been filed, it be taken on record and be considered. This shall, however be subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to complainant on the very next date fixed before the Forum. The District Forum shall take the reply/written version on record and thereafter afford an opportunity to complainant to file rejoinder, if any and then to proceed further in accordance with law.
9. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 of the District Forum is set-aside. The District Forum shall proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to cost.