BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT VISAKHAPATNAM
OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.621 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I VISAKHAPATNAM
Between
The Managing Director
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd., Sundaram Towers,
45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai
Appellants/opposite party
A N D
N.Viswanath Das S/o Sri N.Venkat Rao
Hindu, Aged 67 yrs, R/o D.No.2-8-2,
Sector-9, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam
Respondents/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri Kota Subba Rao
Counsel for the Respondent Sri GVLN Murthy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The appeal is filed by the opposite party challenging the order of the District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam in C.C.621 of 2008.
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant being SB A/c holder of the State of Bank of India had obtained health Shield Insurance Policy bearing No.RS000085320000103 through the State Bank of India from the opposite party for a period of one year and the policy was renewed from time to time till 1st July 2008. The opposite party without informing the complainant cancelled the insurance policy. The complainant was not inclined to discontinue the policy as he intends to derive the benefit of medical insurance coverage for him and his wife at the advanced age. The Condition No.4 of the insurance policy stipulates notice of 14 days in advance besides refund of the amount the last paid premium less a prorata part thereof.
The opposite party, as seen from the impugned order remained exparte despite service of notice on it.
The complainant has filed his affidavit and the documents EXs.A1 to A13.
The District Forum has allowed the complaint with a direction for payment of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides refund of the premium Rs.6787/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum has passed the order hastily without giving it opportunity to file its written version within the prescribed period of 30 days in terms of Sec.13 (2)(a)(b) of the C.P. Act. The next date of hearing could have been fixed after 30 days from the date of receipt of notice for the purpose of filing the written version of the opposite party.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any infirmity of legal lacunae?
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Forum without waiting for the statutory period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite parties has proceeded to dispose of the complaint and thereby deprived the opposite party of an opportunity to contest the claim of the complainant.
A perusal of the docket order goes to show that on 4.2.2009 the opposite party was set exparte. The docket order reads as under:
“Notice to OP served. Called absent. Set exparte. For hearing complainant callon 5/2”
By this order it is not clear as to when the notice was served on the opposite party. An envelope was filed showing the notice was served on the appellant/opposite party on 22.1.2009. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant insurance company that the notice was sent from Chennai to its advocate at Visakhapatnam through Professional Courier and the same was received by him on 6.2.2009 by which time the complaint was disposed of by the District Forum. Section 13 of C.P. Act mandates the procedure to be adopted by the District Forum while making enquiry of the complaint. Section 13 of C.P. Act reads as under:
Procedure on admission of complaint. — (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,—
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in clauses (c) to (g);
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered whether the prescribed time for filing the written by the opposite party is directory or mandatory. The Apex Court held in TOPLINE SHOES LTD., Vs. CORPORATION BANK, reported in II (2002) CLT 1(SC) as under:
A reading of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 no doubt makes it clear that the District Forum would give time of 30 days to the opposite party for the purposes of giving his version. An extension of time for filing reply could be granted but not exceeding 15 days. Thus the total period during which the reply can be filed is 45 days after extension of fifteen days is granted. The question which however arises is as to whether the provision prescribing limit for filing reply is mandatory or directory in nature.
We have already noticed that the provision as contained under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 is procedural in nature. It is also clear that with a view to achieve the object of the enactment, that there may be speedy disposal of such cases, that it has been provided that reply is to be filed within 30 days and the extension of time may not exceed 15 days. This provision envisages that proceedings may not be prolonged for a very long time without the opposite party having filed his reply. No penal consequences have however been provided in case extension of time exceeds 15 days. Therefore, it could not be said that any substantive right accrued in favour of the appellant or there was any kind of bar of limitation in filing of the reply within extended time though beyond 45 days in all. The reply is not necessarily to be rejected. All facts and circumstances of the case must be taken into account. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act also provides that principles of natural justice have also to be kept in mind.
Thus, it is clear from Section 13(2)(a) of C.P.Act and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court that the opposite party should be given 30 days time from the date of receipt of the notice for the purpose of filing the written statement. The District Forum has erroneously disposed of the matter on 6.2.2009 ignoring the fact that the notice was served on the opposite party on 22.1.2009 and thereby the opposite party was deprived of the opportunity to contest the claim of the complainant within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not stand to the scrutiny of law and as such liable to be set aside.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 6.2.2009 of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is remanded to the District Forum. The opposite party shall file its written version and documents if any, before the District Forum by 3.9.2010. The District Forum directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the record.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.03.08.2010
KMK*
