Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/19/98

LIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH KUMAR SINGHAL - Opp.Party(s)

SH.J.R.GUPTA

27 Dec 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            REVISION PETITION NO.98 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 24.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.202/2016 by the District Commission, Morena)  

 

1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    RADHIKA PALACE HOTEL CAMPUS,

    NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA, MORENA (M.P.)

 

2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

    THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    SACHIN TENDULKAR MARG,

    CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                  …          PETITIONERS.

 

                         VERSUS

RAKESH KUMAR SINGHAL,

S/O SHRI D. N. SINGHAL,

GAYATRI COLONY, NEAR M.G.MEMORIAL SCHOOL,

MORENA (M.P.)                                                                                                …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY          :   MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA     :   MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

                 Shri Jatin Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.

                 None for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 27.12.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                                       

                       The petitioners/opposite parties have filed this revision petition against the order dated 24.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.202/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena (For short ‘District Commission’) whereby their application dated 07.12.2018 for taking

-2-

affidavit and documents on record, was dismissed by the District Commission.

2.                The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that after service of notice dated 12.01.2017 of complaint, the petitioners/opposite parties first time appeared through counsel on 15.02.2017 but did not file any reply. They filed reply to the complaint on 09.03.2017 i.e. beyond a period of 45 days. However, the District Commission vide order dated 02.11.2018 allowed their belated reply to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/respondent. Thereafter the case was fixed for final hearing on 07.12.2018. On 07.12.2018 counsel for parties appeared in first hours. However, in second hours again counsel for opposite parties/petitioner appeared and filed affidavit and documents along with an application for taking the same on record. The District Commission declined their prayer and dismissed the application.  Challenging the said order the opposite parties have preferred the present revision on the ground that the petitioners could not get an opportunity to put their evidence before the District Commission. 

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the District Commission has committed gross irregularity by not taking their evidence and documents on record and also by not giving an opportunity to complainant to file rejoinder. It is their further grievance that the matter is

-3-

fixed for rejoinder and affidavit & documents filed on the very next date were not taken on record, therefore, the impugned order is against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’). 

4.                For disposal of this revision, relevant provisions of the Act is necessary to be discussed herein. Section 13 of the Act deals with the procedure on admission of complaint. Section 13 is necessary to be reproduced:

“Section 13. 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)………………….

(c)………………….

(d)………………….

(e)………………….

(f)………………….

(g)………………….

(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaints admitted by it under section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub­section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services,­

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party 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 copy of the 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 consumer dispute,­

(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or

 

-4-

(ii) ex parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum;

(c) where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits.

(3) No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in subsections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.

[(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if it requires analysis or testing of commodities:

Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum:

Provided further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this Act.

Provided also that in the event of a complaint being disposed of after the period so specified, the District Forum shall record in writing, the reasons for the same at the time of disposing of the said complaint.] 

[(3B) Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.]

(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—

(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;

(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence;

(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;

(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;

(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness, and

(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.

5……………….

                                                       -5-

6……

7…….

5.                On bare perusal of aforesaid provisions, it is very clear from 13(2)(b) that where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the 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 consumer dispute which means that the opposite parties was to file reply and all the documents along with affidavit. It is nowhere mentioned in the aforesaid provisions that the opposite parties will file reply and affidavit & documents separately. If they had filed reply, they will be given another opportunity to file affidavit and documents separately. It is also to kept in mind that the procedure under this Act is summary in nature and the complaint is to be decided as expeditiously as possible.­

6.                Section 13(3) of the Act says that no proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in subsections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with which clearly means to say that the complaint would result in being decided ex parte, or without the response of the opposite party, if not filed within such time as provided under the Act, and in such a case, the opposite party will not be allowed to take the plea that he was not

-6-

given sufficient time or that principles of natural justice were not complied with.

7.                It is also important to mention here that Section 13(2)(a) says that a copy of complaint will be sent to the opposite party 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.

8.                Therefore, in view of the above provisions, it is clear that from the date of receipt of copy of complaint, the opposite party has to file version/written statement/reply within the time stipulated as per Section 13(2) of the Act. Same principles have been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. II (2020) CPJ 1 (SC)

9.                Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with the provisions of Section 13(2) and Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC regarding filing of written version laid down the principle that in our considered view, for cases under the Act also, the time provided under Section 13(2)(a) of the Act has to be read as mandatory, and not directory. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged

-7-

under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

10.              Thus it is clear that the opposite party has to file its version within 30 days and further after 15 days but not exceeding beyond that. Version means the reply/written statement along with affidavit and documents in support of their contentions/pleadings.  The opposite party has no any right to file affidavits and documents separately after filing of the reply as in the present case they prayed for filing affidavit and documents after more than one year.  If it is allowed, this procedure will never end and it will defeat the very purpose of the Act to decide the complaint expeditiously.

11.              During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit filed by the petitioner ought to have been taken on record by the District Commission as the District Commission has power of civil court.

12.              In the light of the alleged arguments, we peruse the relevant provisions of Section 13(4) as reproduced hereinabove of the Act which

-8-

says that for the purposes of this Section the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in civil court under CPC, while trying a suit. 13.                 Perusal of the aforesaid Section indicates that the District Commission can exercise power of Civil Court but it does not express that affidavit and documents can be filed after filing of reply meaning thereby affidavit and documents are to be filed along with reply and not separately. However, the District Commission has power of civil court with regard to call documents and evidence from the parties and may exercise its powers but the opposite parties are bound by the provision of Section 13(2(a) of the Act, therefore, the provisions of Section 13(4) is not benefitted to the appellant. The opposite parties/petitioners cannot enlarge the scope of the District Commission in the light of Section 13(4) of the Act. If this will be allowed, then it will become just like a regular trial in civil suit, i.e. conversion of summary trial to regular trial. This process will never end and will defeat the very purpose of this Act to decide the complaint expeditiously.

14.              In the case in hand, if application dated 07.12.2018 of the petitioners/opposite parties is to be seen, the petitioners wanted to file affidavit of Pankaj Bohra and documents as per list.  It is surprising to see that affidavit of Pankaj Bohra, Legal Manager of the petitioners was very well prepared on 11.05.2018, then why this affidavit was kept with him and

-9-

why the opposite parties did not file it earlier, no reason for the same was also not explained by the opposite parties/petitioners. The reason given in the application for filing affidavit and documents is not convincing.   

15.              It is clear that this Commission in revision can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the District Commission below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  From the record we find that the District Commission has therefore committed no error while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. The impugned order is proper and is based on the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

16.              In view of the above discussion and under facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or

material irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed having no merits and substance. No order as to costs.

 

1. K. Tiwari)         (Dr. Srikant Pandey)      (D. K. Shrivastava)

    Presiding Member               Member                            Member