KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 07/2021

ORDER DATED: 14.02.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 150/2020of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. Branch Officer, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Kannankeri Estate, Shanmugham Road, Kochi-689 646.

2. Authorized Officer, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., ICICI Lombard House, NCB Confirmation Team, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.

(By Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Mathew Samuel, S/o E.M. Samuel, Elanjickal House, Vettipuram Muri, Pathanamthitta Village, Mundukottackal Post-689 649, Pathanamthitta.

2. Insurance Executive, Honda Assure, Vision Honda, Ground Floor, Thenghumkavu P.O., Mallassery, Pathanamthitta-689 646.

3. Administrative Officer, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kunnithottathil Towers, Ring Road, Pathanamthitta-689 645.

ORDER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R: MEMBER

This revision petition is filed by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties in C.C. No. 150/2020 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (District Commission for short).  As per the order dated 11.12.2020 the District Commission set the second and third opposite parties/revision petitioners ex-parte.  Aggrieved by the said order they have filed this revision. 

2.  The complaint pertains to the amount of premium collected by the second opposite party from the complainant for issuing a motor policy to cover his vehicle.  The previous policy was issued by the 4^th opposite party and the dispute is regarding the eligibility of No Claim Bonus (NCB) under the renewed policy.

3.  Heard and perused the records.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioners admitted having received the notice in the complaint filed before the District Commission.  The case was posted to 19.11.2020 for return of notice.  The opposite parties 2 & 3/revision petitioners could not appear before the District Commission on that day.  The case was adjourned to 11.12.2020, on which date also there was no appearance.  Hence the opposite parties 2 & 3/revision petitioners were declared ex-parte by the District Commission on that date.  The counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 filed vakalath and a petition to set aside the ex parte order on 21.01.2021 which was not accepted by the District Commission.  He again submitted the petition to set aside the order on 08.02.2021 along with an affidavit stating that because of Covid-19 pandemic the office of the opposite parties 2 & 3 were closed and hence they could not appear before the District Commission on the posting dates.  However, the petition was not accepted by the District Commission observing that they have no authority to set aside their own order.

4.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the complaint was filed and the ex-parte order was passed during the period of Covid-19 pandemic. Though there is no mention in the revision petition about the peculiar situation prevalent in those days due to Covid 19 pandemic, he argued that the revision petitioners are eligible for exclusion from the period of limitation as directed by the Apex Court. He brought to our attention about the pleading in the affidavit of the counsel for the second and third opposite parties appeared before the District Commission.   He has stated in the affidavit that the reason for non appearance was the closure of office of revision petitioners due to Covid-19 pandemic. He has filed an affidavit before this Commission also. Hence the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the ex-parte order of the District Commission.

5.  On examination of the records we observe that, despite receipt of notice the opposite parties 2 & 3 have not appeared before the District Commission and filed their version within the statutory period. As the revision petitioners/2^nd and third opposite parties have not filed their version within the statutory period they were declared ex-parte by the District Commission as per section 38(3)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. We do not find any error in the said order of the District Commission.

6.  We observe that the notice in the complaint was sent to the opposite parties on 27.10.2020 and the service of notice is admitted.  The second and third opposite parties/ Revision Petitioners did not appear on the posting dates on 19.11.2020 and 11.12.2020. They were set exparte on 11.12.2020. Vakalath and IA for setting aside the ex-parte order presented by them on 21.01.2021 and 08.02.2021 were not accepted by the District Commission. The ex-parte order was passed by the District Commission during the Covid 19 pandemic period.  Hence the crucial issue to be considered in this case is whether the revision petitioners/2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties deserves exclusion from the period of limitation allowed by the apex court due to Covid 19 pandemic.

7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/opposite party argued that they were set ex-parte during the period of exclusion from limitation period available as per the order of the Apex Court because of the spread of Covid 19 pandemic.  The said exclusion from limitation was available from 15.03.2020 to 29.05.2022. The ex-parte order was passed on 11.12.2020 and the I.A. for setting aside the said order was presented on 21.01.2021 and 08.02.2021, ie. during the said exempted period.  The District Commission refused to accept the I.A. stating that they have no authority to set aside the order declaring them as ex-parte.  We concur with the view of the District Commission that they have no authority to set aside their ex-parte order.  However this revision petition, challenging the ex-parte order dated 11.12.2020, is filed during the period of the limitation exclusion available as per the order of the Apex Court. The order of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020, which extended the time limits prescribed by the various enactments in our country up to 29.05.2022 was in the wake of the extraordinary situation created by the spread of the pandemic Covid-19.  We are of the view that since the said order as well as the order of the National Commission to the said effect were in force the revision petitioners should be given the benefit of exclusion from limitation period.  We observe that though the District Commission has no authority to set aside their own ex-parte order, the Revision Petitioner/opposite party has approached them with an I.A.  and also filed this revision petition before the expiry of the Covid-19 exclusion period.  We are of the view that the Revision Petitioners should be given the benefit of Covid-19 exclusion from limitation as the ex-parte order was passed and this revision was filed during the said period .

8.  For the foregoing reasons the ex-parte order dated 11.12.2020 of the District Commission is liable to be set aside. Hence, we set aside the order dated 11.12.2020 of the District Commission declaring the Revision Petitioners ex-parte.  The District Commission shall take on file the version of the revision petitioners/second and third opposite parties if any filed and shall proceed to consider and dispose of the complaint on  merits, after affording an opportunity to the revision petitioners to contest the matter.  

          In the result, the revision is allowed.  No costs.

AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER