Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/19/112

SHRI BALAJI FOOD PRODUCT - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSU.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.H.SHARMA

19 Nov 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                             REVISION PETITION NO. 112 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 21.06.2019 passed in C.C.No.122/2017 by the District Commission, Morena)

 

SHRI BALAJI FOOD PRODUCTS.                                                                  …          PETITIONER.

 

Versus

                 

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS.                                                      …         RESPONDENTS.                                     

                                     

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                      :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

 

19.11.2020

 

          Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            Ms. Tasveer Lalwani, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            None for the respondent no.2 & 3.

           

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar:            

                         This revision petition arises out of the order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.122/2017 whereby the District Commission rejected the application filed on 08.08.2018 by the petitioner/complainant for taking additional evidence by way of affidavit on record on the ground that the same was filed belatedly and no just reason was stated in the application of not filing it at the earlier stage.

 2.               Learned counsel for petitioner/complainant submits that additional affidavit was required to be filed as few facts which were brought in reply and affidavits were needed to be clarified. He submits that delay in filing evidence affidavit could have been condoned by the District Commission by imposing

 

-2-

reasonable cost but in not doing so, the District Commission has not exercised jurisdiction vested it in by law.

3.                On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned order.

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned order and record.

5.                Having gone through the impugned order and the record we are of the view that the affidavit could have been taken on record by the District Commission by imposing some cost for the delay.  In the circumstances, we feel that the interest of justice will be served if affidavit filed by the petitioner/complainant is allowed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to be payable by the petitioner/complainant to the respondent no.1 on or before the next date of hearing as fixed hereunder before the District Commission. Respondent no.1 is permitted to file further affidavit within one month from the date of appearance before the District Commission.

6.                With the aforesaid directions, the impugned order is set-aside and the revision petition stands disposed of.

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 22.12.2020.

8.                Record be sent by forthwith.

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)               (S. S. Bansal)           

                          President                                      Member