APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For Appellant | : | Mr. Pankul Nagpal, Advocate | For Respondent No. 1 | : | Mr. R. Soundarajan, Advocate with Ms. Naomi Chandra, Advocate | | | | | | |
PRONOUNCED ON: 9th May 2018 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 02.03.2017, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 16/2016, filed by respondent no. 1, Sarat Kumar Gajendra, vide which, the appellant were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Sarat Kumar Gajendra, filed the consumer complaint no. 16/2016 against the appellant/Insurance Company, alleging deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on their part in the matter of issuing certain insurance policies and demanded payment of Rs. 43,30,447.55 as maturity value, together with a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- as punitive damages. The notice of the complaint was issued by the State Commission to the appellants/opposite parties, but they did not put in appearance before the State Commission and were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 02.03.2017. A perusal of the order sheets for various dates appended with the paper book indicates that the State Commission passed the following order on 13.07.2016:- “Order No. 04 Date of Order: 13.07.2016 Notices were sent to opposite party nos. 1 to 4 by registered post with AD on 2.6.2016. In the meantime, one month has already been elapsed. So, notices against respondents are held to be sufficient. Heard learned counsel for the complainant on the point of admission. The consumer complaint is admitted. List it on 19.09.2016 for hearing.” 3. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on various dates, but the appellant never put in appearance before the State Commission. The order recorded on 02.03.2017 says as follows:- “Order No. 11 Date of Order: 02.03.2017 Learned counsel for the complainant is present. None appears on behalf of opp. parties on call. They are set ex-parte. Heard learned counsel for the complainant on the petition filed for acceptance of documents. The document is accepted. List it on 25.04.2017 for hearing.” 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that they had never received the notice for hearing of the consumer complaint from the State Commission. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 1 pointed out, however, that in the memo of appeal itself, the appellant had admitted that they duly received the notice sent by the State Commission and also appointed Ms. Rohini Pattnaik as Advocate for defending them. The learned counsel for the appellant then stated that they should be given an opportunity to defend the case on merits before the State Commission, because they should not be allowed to suffer for the fault of their counsel. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 1, however, stated that the Advocate stated to have been appointed by the appellant had not even filed her vakalatnama. The learned counsel further pointed out that there was a delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal, for which, no reasonable explanation had been given and hence, the appeal deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 6. A perusal of the memo of appeal itself reveals that the appellant duly received the notice of the consumer complaint from the State Commission and they appointed Ms. Rohini Pattnaik as Advocate to defend the complainant. It is, however, made out from the papers on record that the said Advocate never put in appearance before the State Commission. It was the duty of the appellant to keep track of the progress of the case and take appropriate steps from time to time as required. This is more so, because the appellant is an established life insurance Company and they are expected to keep track of the legal proceedings filed against them. In any case, the appellant have nowhere explained whether they have taken any action against the said Advocate for her failure to appear before the State Commission in the consumer complaint. A perusal of the orders recorded by the State Commission from time to time indicates that the appellant did not make appearance before the State Commission on any of the hearings and hence, an order was passed on 02.03.2017, vide which, the appellant were proceeded against ex-parte. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order. 7. It is further observed that there is a delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, but it does not provide any cogent and convincing explanation for the delay in filing the present appeal. It is stated that the appellant came to know about the order dated 02.03.2017 only in the last week of May, 2017, when they made inquiries from their counsel. The appellant could have made such inquiries at earlier stage as well, when they were in receipt of the notice from the State Commission. 8. Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no justification for giving any relief in the present appeal both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. The present appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed. The State Commission may take further steps for the disposal of consumer complaint in accordance with law. | 
