State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dhlf Lic vs Kadam Singh on 7 September, 2020
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVISION PETITION NO. 117 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 08.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.193/2019 by the District Commission Gwalior) DHLF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE-CITY CENTER, GWALIOR, (M.P.) THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. ... PETITIONER. Versus KADAM SINGH, S/O SHRI RAM SINGH, R/O 11, LADYPURA, VILLAGE-PARSODA, TEHSIL-ZAURA, DISTRICT-MORENA (M.P.) .... RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri Narayan Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner None for the respondent. O R D E R (Passed On 07.09.2020)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Presiding Member.
This revision petition under Section 17(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act of 1986) by the petitioner/opposite party is directed against the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (For short District Commission) in C.C.No.193/2019 whereby the District Commission closed the right of the petitioner/opposite party to file reply to the complaint before the District Commission and fixed the case for final arguments.
2. Heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receiving the notice of the complaint, the petitioner/opposite party contacted their Mumbai Head Office, from where written statement was to be issued. The insurance company's head office is based in Mumbai. This is the reason for delay in filing the reply before the District Commission on the due date. The opposite party/petitioner had narrated these facts before the District Commission who however ignored the submissions made by the opposite party/petitioner and closed their right to file reply to the complaint before the District Commission without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner/opposite party. Learned counsel argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and petitioner be permitted to file their reply to the -2- complaint before the District Commission. He relied on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1083 - 1084 / 2016 M/s Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Grand Venezia Buyers Association on 11.02.2016 and in Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2017 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 10.02.2017 to support his submission.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the Revision Petition and record of the District Commission, we observe that the District Commission issued notice to the opposite party/petitioner on 10.05.2019 which was served on the opposite party/petitioner on 24.05.2019. Thereafter counsel for the opposite party/petitioner appeared before the District Commission on 24.06.2019. Subsequently the District Commission gave opportunity to the opposite party/petitioner on 04.07.2019 before closing their right to file reply to the complaint, vide order dated 08.07.2019.
5. This question that whether time stipulated under Section 13 of the Act of 1986 for filing written statement is mandatory and whether no flexibility is available with the Court in the interest of justice, was answered in the affirmative in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2015) 16 SCC 20 reiterating the view in J. J. Merchant and Ors. Vs Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635 but the matter was referred to larger bench.
6. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an order dated 11.02.2016 considering the fact that in view of uncertainty in law proceedings in number of cases is held up before Consumer Fora. Thus, in Civil Appeal Nos.1083 - 1084 / 2016 M/s Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Grand Venezia Buyers Association Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an interim order to the following effect:
"The proper course in our opinion is to permit the appellant-company to file its response, which was delayed by just about one day. We accordingly permit the appellant to file its reply before the National Commission within two weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs to be paid to the opposite party. The Commission can upon deposit of costs proceed with the trial of the complainant on merits after receiving the reply filed by the respondent. The pendency of present proceedings shall not be an impediment for the Commission to do so. This however is subject to the condition that complainant-respondent is ready and willing to take the proceedings forward on the conditions aforementioned. In case the complainant--3-
respondents have any objection to the continuance of the proceedings before the Commission they shall be free to seek stay of such proceedings pending disposal of these appeals in which event the proceedings shall remain stayed till disposal of the present appeals."
7. Referring the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further in Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2017 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vide order dated 10.02.2017 held that:-
"We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will 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. Now Hon'ble Supreme Court in batch of Civil Appeals including Civil Appeal No.10941 - 10942 / 2013 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vide their order dated 04.03.2020 has cleared the position of the law in the matter by holding that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Act of 1986.
9. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra) vide order dated 04.03.2020 had made an observation that:-
Sub Section 2(a) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for the opposite party to give his response within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum. The intention of the legislature seems to be very clear that the opposite party would get the time of 30 days, and in addition another 15 days at the discretion of the Forum to file its response. No further discretion of granting time beyond 45 days is intended under the Act.
The question of natural justice is dealt with the legislature in Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which clearly provides that No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in Sub Section (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. The legislature was conscious that the complaint would result in being decided ex-parte, or without the response of the opposite party, if not filed within such time as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and in such a -4- case, the opposite party will not be allowed to take the plea that he was not given sufficient time or that the principles of natural justice were not complied with. Any other interpretation would defeat the very purpose of Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10 Hon'ble Supreme Court made clear that as mentioned in the statement of objects and Reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum is to provide speedy disposal of consumer disputes. The same has been further reiterated by the legislature by insertion of Section 13(2)(c) and by 13 (3A) by Act 62 of 2002. While reiterating the principles in J. J. Merchant (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for cases under the Consumer Protection Act, the time provided under Section 13 (2) (a) of the Act has to be read as mandatory and not directory.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd (supra) vide their order dated 04.03.2020 had clearly stated in paragraph 41 that:
"41. To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint."
12. Now since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cleared the legal position in the matter in response to the reference made to it, there is no occasion to render relief in terms of interim arrangement in terms of the judgments passed earlier in Bhasin Infotech (supra) and Reliance General Insurance Co. (supra).
13. This Commission in similar circumstances vide order dated 31.08.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 61/2019 (Dr. A. K. Pathak & Anr Vs Shalu Raikwar) and order dated 01.09.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 56/2019 (Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Limited Vs Jeevan & Anr) as also in Revision Petition No. 18/2020 (A.U.Small Finance Bank -5- Vs Jeevan & Anr) has dealt with the issue and in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, supra has held that the District Commission is not empowered to extend the period fixed under Section 13 of the Act of 1986 for filing reply of the complaint.
14. Therefore, in view of the latest legal position in the matter made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, supra we find that the District Commission has committed no illegality or irregularity in the matter in closing the right of the petitioner/opposite party to file reply to the complaint before the District Commission which is beyond time as is envisaged in Section 13 of the Act of 1986.
15. In the result, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.