Rajasthan

StateCommission

RP/32/2024

UNITED INDIA INUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAND KISHORE JINDAL S/O SHRI RADHESHYAM JINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

RIZWAN AHMAD

16 May 2024

ORDER

RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR

 

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 32/2024

 

United India Insurance Cp. Ltd. 16, Rajendra Marg, 1^st floor, Bhilwara 3110011 at present having its Regional Office at 8^th floor, NBCC Sahakar Marg, Jaipur through its authorized signatory.

….Petitioner/ OP No. 1

Vs.

 

1, Nand Kishore Jindal s/o Radheyshyam Jindal, Member of Board of Director, A-147, Kumud Vihar, Dadidham, Bhilwara.

2. Nidhi Devi w/o Nand Kishore Jindal ,Member of Board of Director, A-147, Kumud Vihar, Dadidham, Bhilwara.

3. Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd., Office at E-372, RIICO Industrial Area, Growth Center, Swaroopganj, Hameergarh District Bhilwara.

 

…..Complainants/Respondents

2

 

4. M/s. Truth Lab Forensic Services, 402, Janpath Kendra, D/h Sehajananad College, Hyderabad.

5. The Bank of Baroda, SSI Branch, Bhilwara.

….Non complainants/Proforma Respondents

 

Date of Order 16.05.2024

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devendra Kachhawaha-President

Hon'ble Mr.Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. Ramphool Gurjar -Member

 

Present:

Mr. Rizwan Ahmed learned counsel for the Petitioner

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL):

 

This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/OP no.1 against the judgment of learned District Consumer Commission, Bhilwara dated 6.9.2023 passed in

3

 

Complaint Case No.42/2023 whereby the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. opposite party no. 4 in the original complaint filed by Nand Kishore Jindal and Nidhi Devi Jindal, was accepted and the applicant/OP no. 4 Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd., was allowed to be impleaded / transposed as complainant no. 3 and Bank of Baroda, SSI Branch Bhilwara was allowed to be impleaded as OP no. 5.

 

As per the office report this revision petition has been filed with the delay of 132 days and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed alongwith the revision petition.

 

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP no.1 the Insurance Company on delay as well as on admission.

 

As regards delay the learned counsel for the petitioner has more or less reiterated the grounds contained in the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay wherein mainly it has been emphasized that the

 

4

 

competent authority of the Insurance Company has directed to file the revision against the impugned order dated 6.9.2023 of the learned DCC Bhilwara on 22.9.2023 and accordingly thereafter the file was sent to the Regional Office at Jaipur and at Jaipur office somehow the file was wrongly placed in the bunch of decided cases and subsequently upon getting the file out of that bunch, time was elapsed in fulfilling the process. In our humble view having regard to the obvious narration of the sequence of events, we deem it proper to hear and ponder upon the merits of the case. Therefore, the delay is condoned.

 

On the point of admission the learned counsel for the petitioner/ OP no.1 Insurance Company has more or less reiterated the grounds contained in the memo of revision petition. The main emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. being the originally insured entity/, the original complaint was not filed by itself but the same was filed by the two Directors of the suspended Board of Directors namely Nand Kishore Jindal and Nidhi Devi Jindal and the insured company Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as OP no. 4. Subsequently the OP no.4

 

5

 

Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. filed an application for impleading itself as co-complainant besides the two original complainants named above and simultaneously request was made to implead the Bank of Baroda, SSI Branch, Bhilwara as non-complainant alongwith original non-complainants shown in the original complaint.

 

From the record it is revealed that in pursuance of the impugned order dated 6.9.2023 the amended complaint has been filed before the learned DCC Bhilwara incorporating the Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. as complainant no. 3 and showing the Bank of Baroda, SSI Branch, Bhilwara as opposite party no. 5 and right now the reply of the amended complaint by the opposite parties is awaited.

 

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objections regarding limitation, change of nature of the matter and non-maintainability of the original complaint as well as amended complaint in view of the various orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Jaipur Bench.

 

We have gone through the various documents filed by

6

 

the petitioner Insurance Company viz. Anx. A/01 Policy of Insurance, Anx. A/02 Letter dated 24.9.2020, Anx. A/03 Order dated 28.12.2022, Anx. A/04 Complaint before DCC, Bhilwara, Anx.A/05 Reply of complaint, Anx. A/06 Application u/s O 1 R 10 & O 6 R 17, Anx. A/07 Reply to application, Anx. A/08 Order dated 6.9.2023, Anx. A/09 Amended complaint, Anx. A/10 Reply to amended complaint, Anx. A/11 Order dated 6.12.2021, Anx. A/12 Order dated 6.12.2021 and Anx. A/13 Order dated 17.6.2021.

 

From the original complaint we find that two complainants namely Nand Kishore Jindal and Nidhi Devi Jindal are the members of suspended Board of Directors of Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. They both are having the capacity of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. It has been mentioned in the beginning of the complaint that the complainants are the members of suspended Board of Directors which is currently going 'CIRP' process, thus the present case has been filed by members of the suspended Board of Directors keeping in view the limitation period. It has further been stated that IRP of Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. has been

 

7

 

made party to the present case alongwith Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. so that they can be transposed with the complainant at relevant stage. From these facts it is clear as to why the insured company Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. was initially shown as OP no.4 in the complaint.

 

It is worthwhile to mention that in the application filed Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC the applicant/Adig Jemtex Pvt. Ltd. has mentioned that upon receipt of the notice of the complaint filed by the two members of Suspended Board of Directors who were having capacity of IRP too, the company came to know about the facts of the complaint and now the insured company itself wants to become co-complainant instead of being continued as OP no.4. As such it cannot be said that the request for impleading the insured company as co-complainant instead of opposite party was suddenly brought into the knowledge of the petitioner Insurance Company.

 

So far as the grounds given in the memo of revision

 

 

8

 

petition are concerned, we are of the view that all these grounds mentioned in the memo of revision petition can be raised in the reply to the amended complaint. Therefore, we are of the view that since there is an opportunity available to the petitioner/OP no.1 the Insurance Company to raise all those grounds which have been raised in this revision petition in the form of reply to the amended complaint as such in our humble view it would be a wastage of time to ponder upon the grounds of the revision petition.

 

Therefore, in the given circumstances instead of admitting this revision petition in the present form, we deem it proper to dispose of it giving the liberty to the petitioner/OP no.1 Insurance Company to raise all the grounds contained in the memo of revision petition in the reply of the amended complaint before the learned DCC Bhilwara itself.

 

Accordingly, the revision petition is not admitted and the petitioner/ OP no.1 Insurance Company is directed to file the reply to the amended complaint wherein the petitioner shall have the liberty to incorporate the objections raised in this

 

9

 

revision petition.

 

The revision petition is accordingly disposed of as above.

 

(Ranphool Gurjar) (A.K.Chatterjee) (Devendra Kachhawaha)

Member Member(Judicial) President

 

 

nm