STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Instituion:18.04.2024
Date of first hearing:23.04.2024
Date of pronouncement:23.04.2024
Revision Petition No.26 of 2024
HDFC ERGO General Insgurance Co. Ltd. 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400059 through its Branch Manager.
Presently filed through Sh. Manoj Kumar Prajapati, Manager-Corporate Legal, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO-124-125. Madhya Marg, Sector-8C, Chandigarh-160008.
.….Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. S.C. Thatai, Advocate
Versus
1. Sharda Joshi W/o Late Shri Satish Kumar,
2. Diksha Joshi D/o Late Shri Satish Kumar,
3. Himanshu Joshi S/o Late Shri Satish Kumar,
All R/o House No.297/2, Bazran Gali, Kurkshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurkshetra, Haryana.
….Respondents.
CORAM: Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Ms. Manjula, Member.
Present:- Mr. S.C. Thatai, counsel for the revisionist.
O R D E R
PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Revisionist herein has challenged order dated 19.03.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Commission at Kurukshetra vide which defence of OP No.3 (revisionist herein) has been struck off.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that in complaint originally filed, revisionist was not arrayed as a party, as it was filed against HDFC Bank Limited & Anr. (OPs No. 1 & 2). On 28.02.2023, application was filed on behalf of complainant for seeking permission to mention name of insurance company (revisionist herein) in array of respondents. Application was allowed vide order dated 04.07.2023 and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. (revisionist herein) was impleaded as OP No.3. Amended title was also filed. OP No.3-revisionist herein, appeared in this complaint, on 11.08.2023 through Sh. Atul Mittal-Advocate, who filed his memo of appearance. It is contended that on 07.12.2023; application was filed by insurer-revisionist to procure policy details. Reply to this application has not filed by complainant on 20.12.2023, 31.01.2024, 18.03.2024. Case was adjourned to 19.03.2024 for filing of reply and consideration. On 19.03.2024, impugned order was passed. It is urged that without giving any consideration on insurer’s revisionist’s application (filed on 07.12.2023), and without soliciting reply from complainant; learned District Consumer Commission has hurriedly struck off, the defence of insurer-revisionist. It is urged that without obtaining policy particulars/details from complainant; revisionist was not in a position to file its reply to the merits of complaint. On these submissions, learned counsel for revisionist has urged for acceptance of this revision by setting aside impugned order dated 19.03.2024, passed by learned District Consumer Commission.
3. This Commission does not see any necessity to issue notice in this revision petition to respondents and disposes it in limine.
4. Undisputedly, OP No.3-revisionist has appeared in proceedings of complaint through its counsel (Sh. Atul Mittal, Advocate) on 11.08.2023. From 11.08.2023 till 07.12.2023 (nearly four months time) was already consumed by OP No.3-revisionist for filing written statement. Application for seeking policy details/particulars from complainant which was eventually submitted on 07.12.2023 could have been filed either on 11.08.2023 or on four dates fixed thereafter (11.09.2023, 05.10.2023, 09.11.2023 and 07.12.2023). Curiously enough, no such overt act was done by OP No-3-revisionist. Nothing stopped OP No.3-revisionist to file a short written statement by pleading therein about its requirement of obtaining of policy particulars/details from complainant. Even that was not done. To the contrary, learned counsel appearing for OP No.3-revisionist, kept on seeking dates for filing written statement, as it is so visible from perusal of zimni orders, appended along with this revision petition and period of nearly four months elapsed in that context. There is total laxity on the part of OP No.3-revisionist, on this front and learned counsel appearing for OP No.3-revisionist could not wriggle out from above factual scenario, and legal implications flowing there from. Ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as “New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited” (2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 757 is fully attracted on above narrated facts. In this pronouncement, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that: “limitation period for filing reply/response to the complaint by the respondent/opposite party mandatorily cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period of 45 days (i.e. period of 30 days along with discretionary extension of time up to 15 days)”. This being so, revisionist cannot derive any advantage from the contention of its counsel that learned District Consumer Commission did not solicit reply from complainant to its application filed on 07.12.2023. There is no error (legal or factual) in the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Commission to struck off the defence of OP No.3-revisionist and same be maintained/affirmed. Present revision petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed in-limine. It is ordered accordingly.
5. A copy of this order be provided to all parties, free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission for perusal of parties.
6. Application for stay filing along with revision petition stands disposed off in terms of this order passed in main revision petition.
7. File be consigned to record room.
April, 23rd April, 2024 Manjula Naresh Katyal Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-I Addl. Bench-I
