HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No. : 09

Date : 18.09.2024

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders Nos. 12 and 13 dated 03.08.2023 and 27.09.2023, passed by Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum, Suiri, in CC/79/2022, regarding the order for fixing Exparte Argument of CC/79/2022, the OP of CC/79/2022 i.e. the revisionist/petitioner, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. preferred this Revision Petition U/Sec. 47 (1) (b) of the C.P. Act of 2019 praying for setting aside the impugned orders Nos. 12 and 13 dated 03.08.2023 and 27.09.2023 respectively since according to the Revisionist/Petitioner, those two impugned orders are both ‘errors apparent prima facie’ with material irregularity.

    The factual matrix in gist reflects that the OP/Respondent of this Revision Chandra Nath Mondal) had filed complaint in CC/79/2022 against the OP/Revisionist in CC/79/2022 and Revision Petition 23/2023 respectively seeking insurance claim from the OP of CC/79/2022 i.e. the present Revisionist for the OP/Revisionist’s repudiating the complainant/respondent’s insurance claim against his purchasing standard ‘Fire & Peril Policy’ being No. 313400/11/2919/14 for the period from 16.01.2019 to 15.01.2020 by depositing payable premium of Rs. 44,368/-. The Case record reveals that by the impugned order Nos. 12 and 13 dated 03.08.2023 and 27.09.2023 of CC/79/2022, the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum, Suiri fixed exparte evidence-in-chief of the complainant/Respondent Chandra Nath Mondal in CC/79/2022 on 27.09.2023 for non filing of Written Version by the OP of CC/79/2022 in time and by the impuned order No. 13 dated 27.09.2023 in CC/79/2022 the Ld. Concenred DCDRC fixed 13.12.2023 for the exparte argument in CC/79/2022 directing W/N/A to be filed in CC/79/2022 in the meantime. 

   It is the submission of the Revisionist/Petitioner of the instant Revision i.e. the OP of CC/79/2022 that the certified copy of the impugned order Nos. 12 dated 03.08.2023 and 13 dated 27.09.2023, passed in CC/79/2022 against which the instant Revision dated  12.12.2023 was filed, were procured by the Revisionist/Petitioner on 09.11.2023/12.12.2023 against its’ filing petition for that purpose on 08.11.2023 and thereafter, this Revision Petition is filed on 12.12.2023 praying for setting aside the impugned orders No. 12 and 13 dated 03.08.2023 and 27.09.2023 passed in CC/79/2022 since the impugned orders both, as mentioned above are ‘errors apparent and are materially irregular’ and since the instant Revision Petition is filed within the stipulated period, statutorily fixed for filing the same as per relevant provisions of Sec. 47 (1) (b)] of C.P. Act of 2019.

                                         Point for consideration

   Now it is to be ascertained as to whether the instant Revision Petition, filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner at this Revision Petition/OP of CC/79/2022 i.e. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. represented by its Divisional Manager, Asansol Division, deserves positive consideration or not.

                                      Decision with reasons

    Having regard to the coming into existence of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2021, pronounced on 14.12.2021, in Diamond Exports and another – Appellant VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another- Respondents, where the Hon’ble Apex Court of India had also discussed distinguished and dealt with the judgement of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. decided on 04.03.2020 that has a prospective effect from 04.03.2020 besides the contents of Judgement of Dr. J.J. Merchant (2002) 6 SCC 635 and Daddy’s Builders (2021) 3 SCC 669 and the judgement of Dr. A. Suresh Kumar VS. Amit Agarwal (2021) 7 SCC 466, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Mumpei Timbers & Hardwars Pvt. Ltd (2021) 3 SCC 673, Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. VS Grand Venezia Buyers’ Association (2018) 17 SCC 255 : and Dr. A. S. Kumar VS A. Agarwal (2021) and SCC 466 the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that there was element of discretion to exercise to condone the delay in filing written version beyond the statutory period of 45 days from the date of service of notice together with complaint upon the OP in complaint cases, filed under the C.P. Act.

   In the light of the above direction of the Hon’ble Court, I will now scan the available materials on record of CC/79/2022 to ascertain as to whether the instant Revision filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner of this Revision Petition, praying for allowing it’s Revision Petition, by condoning it’s delay in filing Written Version from it’s end and for allowing and accepting the written version in CC/79/2022, even after the expiry of stipulated period fixed for filing written version in CC/79/2022, deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders Nos. 12 and 13 dated 03.08.2023 and 27.09.2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum, Suiri where the Ld. Concerned Commission did not consider for lending scope to the revisionist/OP Insurance Co., for it’s filing written version in CC/79/2022, beyond stipulated period, fixed for the purpose of filing written version vide order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 since OP/Revisionist was absent on 03.08.2023 in the proceeding of CC/79/2022 and had not filed written version in CC/79/2022 and fixed 27.09.2023 for exparte evidence taking of the complainant of CC/79/2022 and passed consequent order vide order No.13 dated 27.09.2023 in CC/79/2022 in consonance with the order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 of CC/79/2022, fixing 13.12.2023 for exparte hearing of argument in CC/79/2022 and directing filing of WNA in the meantime i.e. in between order dated 27.09.2023 and 13.12.2023.

   It is transpiring from the contents of the order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 passed in CC/79/2022 that the Ld. Commission was specific to hold that in spite of delivery of summons/notice in CC/79/2022, as on 02.06.2023, to the OP of CC/79/2022(i.e. the present revisionist of this Revision Petition i.e. RP/23/2023 dated 12.12.2023) and in spite of getting series of scope in CC/79/2022 for filing written version, the OP of CC/79/2022 had not availed itself of that scope even on 03.08.2023, alike previous date. No iota of Data to refute such finding of the Ld. DCDRC could even be placed by the OP/Revisionist for consideration, here before this Commision.

    It further transpires that on that date vide that order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 in CC/79/2022, citing the reference of New India Assurance Co. VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Ltd. pronounced on 04.03.2020 vide Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013, the Ld. Concerned DCDRC had fixed 27.09.2023 for exparte examination-in-chief of the complainant side of CC/79/2022, Chandra Nath Mondal.

Nothing significant and legally substantiating material could even be produced by the OP of CC/79/2022 i.e. the Revisionist/Petitioner of RP/23/2023 here to lend any legally appreciable ground to consider that he had not received the copy of the complaint and summons of CC/79/2022 in time to get scope to file written version in CC/79/2022 on time, within stipulated time, fixed for that purpose, or even within outer limit of the statutorily fixed stipulated time, fixed for filing written version in CC/79/2022. Thereafter, I find no legally appreciable reason to hold that there remains any “element of discretion” left to be entertained as per scopes of the aforestated references to offer any scope to the Revisionist/Petitioner of this Revision Petition to file written version in CC/79/2022 even after the expiry of 45 days stipulated for filing written version in CC/79/2022, specially when no convincing material is forthcoming from the end of the Revisionist/OP to refute the finding of the Ld. DCDRC reflected in order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023, as incorrect or baseless.

   In this premises, so there remains no scope to interference with the order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 passed in CC/79/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC Birbhum Suiri since the same is found sustainable in the eye of law.

   It further transpires that the order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 in CC/79/2022 was the decisive order and the order No. 13 dated 27.09.2023 was passed in that CC/79/2022 in consonance with the spireit of the order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023, as consequent and resulting effect of the order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023, without any dissonance or material deviation, therefrom. It is also to be taken into consideration that it is revealing from the order No. 13 dated 27.09.2023, irrefutably  that on 27.09.2023 too, the OP of CC/79/2022 was absent from attending the proceeding of CC/79/2022 before the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum (Suiri).

   In this backdrop, the OP of CC/79/2022 should have to seek revision against the order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 in respect of CC/79/2022 since that was the decisive order as to the fate of CC/79/2022 but in this Revision, no Revision is filed against that particular order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023, within the stipulated time as per statute, fixed for that purpose. Rather in order to take the latitutde of filing the Revision within time, the Revisionist had chosen the order No. 13 dated 27.09.2023 to seek Revision, fixing that order No. 13 dated 27.09.2023 of CC/79/2022 to be determined as the starting point for filing the Revision Petition and calculatively  filed the instant Revision Petition on 12.12.2023 i.e. within the permissible time span fixed for filing revision against that order No. 13 dated 27.09.2023. However, I run the risk of repetition, and hold that Order No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 in CC/79/2022 was the deciding order as to the fate of the OP in CC/79/2022. This creation of ambiguity by the Revisionist of this Revision  practically serves no purpose rather it categorizes the step taken by it in this Revision legally fruitless and inappreciable.

   Accordingly, I feel that this Revision Petition is not only time barred but is also a ploy to get this Revision Petition somehow heard camouflaging its inherent lacuanal. Besides the discussions in the contests of this judgement reveal the reasons to treat this Revision Petition mertiless and thus deserves to be rejected.

       Hence, it is

                                    ORDERED

   That the instant Revision Petition No. 23/2023 dated 12.12.2023 is rejected on merit on hearing the Revisionist but without cost.

   The impugned orders No. 12 dated 03.08.2023 and order No. 13 dated 27.09.2023 passed in CC/79/2022 stands affirmed on hearing the Revisionist/Petitioner i.e. the OP of CC/79/2022.

   Let copy of this order be sent down to the concerned DCDC, Birbhum Suiri forthwith for information.

    Let stay of the further proceeding in CC/79/2022 in DCDRC, Suiri stands now vacated, having regard to the findings of the instant Revision Petition No. 23 of 2023, pronounced in this order. 

   In this premises, the orders passed by this Commission (IA/88/2023 of this Commission) regarding stay of further proceeding of CC/79/2022, before the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum Suiri stands vacated, unless otherwise directed by any Appellate Authority of this fora at Asansol.

    Let free copies of this order be furnished to the contesting parties of the Revision Petition and CC/79/2022 as well now at once free of cost, accordance with the relevant scopes of the proceed of C.P. Act, rules and regulations.