KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 90/2023
ORDER DATED: 30.01.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 231/2023 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
The Manager, Bank of India, Balaramapuram Branch.
(By Adv. M.H. Mohammed Asharaf)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Prasannakumar. K., Lekshmi Nivas, Russelpuram, Maranalloor, Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Manager, Care Health Insurance, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is a petition filed under Sec. 41 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short) dated 16.10.2023 in C.C. No. 231/2023. The Revision Petitioner was the 2nd opposite party before the District Commission. The complaint was filed claiming damages of Rs. 52,274/- and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- alleging deficiency in service. Complainant had availed a health insurance policy introduced by the 1st opposite party. The benefit covered under the policy was not provided to him and hence the insurance company as well as the revision petitioner were sought to be proceeded against. The revision petitioner had received the notice issued by the District Commission on 21.06.2023, but version was filed only on 16.10.2023.Since the statutory period had elapsed by that time, the version filed by the revision petitioner was rejected against which this Revision has been filed.
2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. Perused the order of the District Commission.
3. Sec. 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 stipulates that the District Commission shall refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version within a period of 30 days or such an extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Commission. Sub-clause (b) further stipulates that if the opposite party omits or fails to file version within the stipulated time the case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought by the complainant. The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757. The revision petitioner had failed to file the version within the statutory time limit. In that circumstance the only option available to the District Commission was to decline from accepting the version. The Apex Court had categorically declared that the District Commission or the State Commission has no power to extend the period fixed under the statute.
4. The District Commission has rightly refused to accept the version filed by the revision petitioner. There is no error committed by the District Commission. So the revision petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
