Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/22/10

RELIANCE LIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHESH KUMAR MEWARI - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.N.CHATURVEDI

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            REVISION PETITION NO. 10 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 06.09.2021 passed in C.C.No.109/2020 by the District Commission, Hoshangabad)  

 

1. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    REGISTERED OFFICE-H BLOCK,

    FIRST FLOOR, DHIRUBHAI AMBANI

    KNOWLEDGE CITY,

    NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 710

 

2. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    BRANCH OFFICE-PLOT NO.2 SECOND FLOOR,

    BANK STREET, M.P.NAGAR, ZONE-II,

    BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                              …          PETITIONERS.

 

                         VERSUS

MAHESH KUMAR MEWARI,

S/O SHRI RAMLAL MEWARI,

R/O NEAR BRAMHKUMARI ASHRAM,

NARAYAN NAGAR, WARD NO.17,

HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)- 461 001                                                                    …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY          :   MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA     :   MEMBER

                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

                 Shri R. N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners.

                 None for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 25.11.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                                       

                       The opposite party no.1 and 2/petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order dated 06.09.2021 passed in C.C.No.109/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (For

-2-

short ‘District Commission) whereby the petitioners were proceeded ex-parte.

2.                The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that after service of notice of complaint, the petitioners/opposite parties failed to appear before the District Commission on 06.09.2021, therefore an order to proceed ex-parte was passed against it.  Challenging the said order the opposite party no. 1 & 2 have preferred the present revision on the ground that the petitioners could not get an opportunity to put their case/defense before the District Commission. 

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Commission did not consider this fact that during covid-19 pandemic most of the offices were closed and the employees were working from home even then the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners. Thus, due to covid-19 pandemic the petitioners were not properly served and therefore, the petitioners had failed to appear before the District Commission on 06.9.2021 and the District Commission wrongly proceeded ex-parte against them.  He further submits that if the impugned order is not set-aside, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

4.                None appeared for the respondent, who has filed written arguments.

 

-3-

5.                The question arises that whether petitioners should be granted an opportunity to defend their case before the District Commission since they were proceeded ex-parte on 06.09.2021. 

6.                We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the written arguments filed by the respondent as also the material available on record. On perusal of the record we find that the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties on 06.09.2021. Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA No.21 OF 2022 in MA No.665 OF 2021 in Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 OF 2020 vide order dated 10.01.2022 has directed that due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.  Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has force that the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against them during Covid-19 Pandemic period when the offices remained closed and employees were working from home.

7.                In revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the District Commission below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  From the record it is established that the District Commission proceeded ex-

-4-

parte against the petitioners on 06.09.2021 i.e. in between the period relaxed by Apex Court 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022

8.                In view of the above discussion and under facts and circumstances of the case we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set-aside.

9.              In the result, the impugned order proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner/opposite party no.1 & 2 is set-aside.

10.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 28.12.2022.

11.              The complainant shall provide copy of complaint along with affidavit and documents to the opposite party no.1 & 2 on the date of appearance. The opposite party no.1& 2/petitioners shall file reply to the complaint positively within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of complaint and documents. Parties are free to file additional evidence, if any, with the permission of the District Commission in support of their respective contentions.

12.              In the light of the above, parties are also free to submit their contentions as contended here with regard to order dated 10.01.2022.

13.              Observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission while deciding the matter.  

 

-5-

13.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

14.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision petition stands allowed.  No order as to costs.

 

        (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

     Presiding Member          Member                      Member