State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cholamandalam General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt.Kuninti Muthavva on 24 July, 2023
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RP No.189/2022
AGAINST THE ORDERS IN CC.No.14/2022, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD
Between:
1.Cholamandalam General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Office situated at 2nd Floor, DARE HOUSE, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001.
2. Cholamandalam General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Office situated at 302, 3rd Floor, SR Arcade, Park Lane, D.No.1-2-73/2 & 1-2-63 to 64, Secunderabad- 500 003.
...Petitioners/Appellants/ Opposite Party No.1 &2 And:
Kuninti Muthavva, W/o Dashrath, Age : 45 years, Caste : Gundla.
OCc.: Beedi Roller, R/o H.No.1-47, Gundam Palli Village of DIlwarpur Mandal, Dist. Nirmal.
........Respondent /Complainant Counsel for Petitioners/Opposite Party No.1 & 2 :
M/s.S.Sravan Kumar Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : M/s. Vijay Kumar QUORUM:
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL MONDAY THE 24th DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ****** Order: (Per Hon'ble Sri K.Ranga Rao, Member-Judicial)
1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Party No.1& 2 under section 47(1) (a) (iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this State Commission to allow the Revision 2 Petition by setting aside the Docket Order dated 17.08.2022 passed in C.C.No.14/2022 by which order opposite parties No.1 & 2 were set exparte, which impliedly forfeited the right of opposite parties No.1 & 2 to file their written version and permit them to file their written version and documents and to pass such other order or orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The following few facts will help to know the background of filing the present Revision Petition by the petitioners/opposite party No.1 & 2.
3. The Respondent/complainant filed Consumer Complaint vide C.C.No.14/2022 on the file of the District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, praying the District Commission to direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
(Rupees fifteen lakh only) towards the death claim of her deceased son towards the sum assured under the policy No.3397/02899138/000/00 which is valid from 08.10.2021 to 07.10.2022 and also to pay further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of her son namely Kuninti Deepak Kumar, i.e. from 24.10.2021 till the date of payment and further to pay costs of the complaint.
4. As seen from the Docket of the said Consumer Complaint, the same was registered and numbered as C.C.No.14/2022 on 31.01.2022 and notice was ordered in the same to the opposite parties and C.C. was posted to 28.02.2022 for the appearance of the opposite parties.
5. The Docket proceedings dated 28.02.2022 shows that since there was no quorum, call on 22.03.2022.
6. The Docket proceedings dated 22.03.2022 shows that OP No.1 & 2 filed vakalat, for counter, time extended call on 12.04.2022.
7. The Docket proceedings dated 12.04.2022 shows that "time extended to file counter by OP No.1 & 2, call on 06.05.2022".
38. The Docket proceedings dated 06.05.2022 shows that "OP No.1 & 2 counsel requested time call on 27.05.2022".
9. The Docket proceedings dated 27.05.2022 shows that Ops No.1 & 2 counsel called absent, as a last chance to file counter, time extended, call on 20.06.2022".
10. The Docket proceedings dated 20.06.2022 shows that "Opposite Party No.1 & 2 counsel, no representation even after last chance, on terms to file counter, time extended call on 15.07.2022.
11. The Docket proceedings dated 15.07.2022 shows that " due to heavy rain under same caption, time extended, call on 17.08.2022".
12. The Docket proceedings dated 17.08.2022 shows that "Opposite Party No.1 & 2 called absent, after much time granted set exparte, for evidence affidavit of the complainant, call on 14.09.2022".
13. Aggrieved by the above Docket Order, dated 17.08.2022, the petitioners/opposite parties No.1 & 2 preferred the present revision R.P.No.189/2022.
14. The petitioners/opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their petition affidavit, which runs into three pages containing of 10 paragraphs mentioned as to the merits of the main C.C. and ultimately prayed to allow the R.P., by setting aside the Docket Order, dated 17.08.2022 and to permit them to file the written version & the documents to prove their case or else irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to them. But, however, the petitioners/opposite parties in their petition affidavit admitted that though their counsel filed vakalat on 22.03.2022 but could not filed written version within the stipulated period for the reason that their Head Office sent letters dated 18.01.2022, 19.02.2022, 03.04.2022 to the complainant to produce documents as 4 mentioned in the letter required for processing the claim but the complainant failed to take any action hence, their Head Office closed the claim and informed the same to the complainant through the letter dated 22.04.2022.
15. Notice sent to the Respondent/Complainant in this Revision Petition was served on the Respondent/Complainant, but she did not make appearance before this Commission and was called absent. Subsequently one Sri Vinay Kumar, Advocate, filed vakalat for respondent/complainant upon which matter was adjourned for counter and enquiry from time to time and ultimately, this Commission having observed the Docket proceedings which show that despite giving ample time as respondent/complainant did not choose to file the counter, heard the arguments of the Revision Petitioner and reserved the matter for orders, so as to decide the same on merits.
16. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Revision Petition No.189/2022 in C.C.No.14/2022 deserves to be allowed by setting aside the Docket Order, dated 17.08.2022, passed by the District Consumer Commission, Adilabad?
17. Section 38 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals about the procedure to be followed by the District Commission on admission of the complaint.
18. Section 38(3) (a) provides that the District Commission shall on admission of complaint, if the complaint relates to any services, refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Commission.
19. Section 38(3) (b) provides that if the opposite party, on receipt of the copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the 5 time given by the District Commission, it shall proceed to settle the Consumer Dispute -
(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, if the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
(ii) exparte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant, where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Commission.
20. The five judges Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of "New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt., Ltd., (2020), 5 Supreme Court cases 757, examined the provision of law for filing written version by the Opposite parties U/s 38(3) (a) and also examined as to from when the period of limitation starts for counting the period of 45 days for filing the written version and categorically held that the prescribed period of 45 days i.e. (Period of 30 days along with discretionary extension of time up to 15 days"., is mandatory and all the District Commissions have no power to extend the time for filing the written version beyond 45 days. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above case law, further held that "the commencement point of limitation of 30 days, would be from the date of Notice, accompanied by a copy of complaint and not merely a receipt of Notice, as the response has to be given within stipulated time, which is mandatory, non extendable beyond maximum 45 days), to the averments made in the complaint.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the above case law referred to Regulation No.10 of Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission procedure) Regulations 2020. The said Regulation No.10 deal about the issue of the notice after the C.C. is numbered. Clause 5 of the above Regulation No.10- Issue Notice- reads as follows:- Clause 5 (along with the notice copy of the complaint, Memorandum of grounds of appeal or petition, as the 6 case may be and other documents filed shall be served upon the opposite party or Respondent.
22. Thus, from cumulative reading of Section 38(3) (a) and the Regulation No.10 (5) titled "ISSUE NOTICE" makes it abundantly clear that the starting point of limitation for counting 45 days for the opposite party to file their written version is from the date of service of notice on the opposite parties along with the copy of the complaint and documents mentioned in the complaint.
23. In the case on hand, the Docket proceedings which we referred to supra in the chronological order, shows that after the Consumer Complaint was numbered, notice was ordered by the District Commission to the opposite parties and posted the matter to 28.02.2022 for the appearance of the opposite parties, on which date for want of quorum the matter was adjourned to 22.03.2022 on which date vakalat was filed for opposite party No.1 & 2. When once the vakalat was filed, it can be concluded that the material papers of the complaint were served to the concerned advocate/opposite parties No.1 & 2 atleast on the said date. So, the starting point of the limitation for computing the mandatory period of 45 days for filing the written version of the opposite parties start from 22.03.2022 and from the said date the mandatory period of 45 days shall be completed by 06.05.2022. So, the opposite parties shall file their written version on or before 06.05.2022. But as seen from the Docket explosion, the District Consumer Commission without application of its mind to the said relevant provision of law, i.e. Section 38(3) (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Regulation No.10 of Consumer Protection Act, (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulation 2020 and to the settled law of the Hon'ble five judges Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the New India Assurance Company Limited, Case (Mentioned supra), went on granting adjournments, so liberally up to 17.08.2022 and it shows that the District Commission granted 103 days, beyond the mandatory period of 45 days for filing the written version and the same is against the relevant provision of law of Consumer Protection Act, 7 for filing the written version and also the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the New India Assurance Company Limited, mentioned supra. Thank God ! the District Commission at last set the opposite parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte on 17.08.2022 for not filing the written version, after grant of much time, despite completion of statutory period of 45 days.
26. Having examined the totality of the facts and the relevant provision of law of Consumer Protection Act and the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the New India Assurance Company Limited, we are of the considered opinion that this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, as not even a single day can be extended beyond the mandatory period of 45 days for filing written version.
27. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Date: 24.07.2023
*AD