State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Gen.Insu.Co. vs Mahendra K.Sharma on 24 May, 2018
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
ORDER SHEET
REVISION PETITION NO. 66/2017
SHREE RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
VS.
MAHENDRA KUMAR SHRA S/O SHIVCHARAN SHARMA
24.5.2018 Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner.
None for respondent (served).
The petitioner-opposite party has filed this revision against the order dated 3.2.2017 passed by District Consumer Forum No.1,Bhopal in complaint case No. 834/16, whereby the right of opposite party to file its written version has been closed.
As reported, this revision is barred by three months and four days. For condonation of delay the petitioner has filed application (I.A.-3).
Learned counsel submits that due to some confusion the petitioner had filed revision No.40/17, challenging jointly the impugned order as well as order dated 30.1.2017. During course of arguments when it transpired that the revision was maintainable only against order dated 3.2.2017, the petitioner withdrew the said revision on 2.8.2017, with liberty to file revision afresh. In view of that the instant revision has become delayed.
On due consideration of circumstances pointed out by learned counsel, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned, subject to imposition of cost of Rs.1,000/-, which shall be deposited in the Consumer Bar Association Legal Aid Fund within four weeks.
On perusal of order sheets of the complaint case No. 834/16, it is revealed that the notice of the complaint was issued on 22.11.2016, which was served on the petitioner-opposite party on 25.11.2016. The petitioner despite service of notice failed to appear on 6.12.2016 and 6.1.2017. On 3.2.2017 counsel for the opposite party appeared and made request to grant time to file reply. The said request was not accepted and right to file reply was closed, since the period for filing reply had already ran out.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the notice issued to Bhopal Branch office of the opposite party, was received on 9.1.2017 but no record of the said notice was kept in the said office and the notice was sent to its office at Jaipur. On the direction of this Commission, Shri Anil Kushwaha, Branch Manager of opposite party appeared and submitted that the notice was received by him but no endorsement was made in the record. There had been no practice of noting entry of letters etc. at Bhopal branch office. All the correspondence was directly sent to the office of Company at Jaipur.
It is surprising that a Company like Shree Ram General Insurance Co. running a branch office at Bhopal had no practice of recording entries of receipt of document or letters. There seems clear negligence on the part of opposite party in not dealing with the notice issued by the Forum.
Learned counsel for petitioner however, submits that the case in hands is a case of theft of an insured motorcycle. If the petitioner is not granted liberty to place before the Forum its written version and requisite documents, it will result in miscarriage of justice. He further submits that on 30.3.2017 itself, the opposite party has filed reply along with documents and application under Section 151 of the CPC, explaining the cause of delay in not appearing in the case before the Forum. The cause shown before the Forum was the same which has been stated by the petitioner before us i.e. all the matters are dealt with at Jaipur office.
Though we are not satisfied by the explanation offered by the petitioner for non-appearance and not filing the written version in time, but in view of the settled principle that it's better that the disputes are adjudicated on merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to allow this revision. The application filed by the petitioner, explaining the delay in filing relpy, before the Forum, was not considered by the Forum in view of the fact that the period of 45 days had already expired.
Recently the Apex Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another vs. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. and another passed on 10th February, 2017, in Civil Appeal D. No.2365 of 2017 held:-
"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 costs and to proceed with the matter."
Therefore, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of reply and direct the District Forum to take the reply of the opposite party on record. However, it would be subject to payment of cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) to complainant. The amount of cost shall be paid to complainant-Mahendra Kumar Sharma, before the District Forum within three weeks.
In the result, the revision is allowed. The District Forum is directed to take on record the reply filed by the opposite party and proceed with the case in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA) PRESIDENT