Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/23/16

MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT ANITA W/O LATE SHRI KAILASH DAHERIYA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJ KUMAR KAIMATHIYA

19 Oct 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                               REVISION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2023

(Arising out of order dated 24.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.241/2021 by the District Commission, Indore-1)

                                                    

MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD & ANR.                                                    …          PETITIONERS

                                               

Versus

                 

SMT. ANITA DAHERIA & ANR.                                                                     …         RESPONDENTS.

                                                                                                          

BEFORE:

 

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

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

19.10.2023

 

          Shri R. K. Kaimaithiya, learned counsel for the petitioners.

                       

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                       The opposite parties/petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the District Commission, Indore-1 in C.C.No.241/2021. This revision petition filed on 13.04.2023 is barred by 11 months and 19 days.

2.                Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on application seeking condonation of delay in filing revision petition as also on the question of admission. Perused the record.

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice of the District Commission was filed in another file, therefore, the counsel was not instructed to appear on 24.01.2022 and on that date, the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties/petitioners.

-2-

On 01.02.2022 when the counsel received instructions from the petitioners on 01.02.2022, he filed vakalatnama on 30.03.2022. On inspection of file counsel found that the petitioners were already proceeded ex-parte on 24.01.2022. Thereafter counsel moved applications before the District Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order stating the reasons for non-appearance.

4.                He submits that since the applications were pending before the District Commission therefore, revision petition could not be filed within limitation.

5.                It is relevant to mention here that as per ordersheet dated 28.08.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to satisfy this Commission on the point that after filing revision, an application seeking condonation can be filed at a later stage as application appears to have been filed on 20.09.2023.               

6.                Rule 11(4) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020 provides as under:

                    (4) When the appeal is presented after expiry of the period of limitation as specified in Section 41, the memorandum shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit setting forth the facts on which appellant relies upon to satisfy the State Commission that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

 

7.                It is explicit clear from the aforesaid provision that if Appeal/Revision Petition is time barred, it is to be filed with the application

-3-

for condonation of delay along with affidavit which clearly implies that application cannot be filed separately at a later stage to seek condonation of delay. It is clear that the application filed separately at a later stage cannot be considered.                         

8.                This revision petition against the order dated 24.01.2022 of the District Commission is filed on 13.04.2023 and a separate application to seek condonation of delay is filed on 20.09.2023 i.e. after five months of filing the Revision Petition, whereas the application should have been filed along with Revision Petition and not separately at a later stage.  No affidavit along with application to seek condonation of delay is filed which is mandatory as per aforesaid provision.

9.                For the aforesaid reasons, we are of a considered view that the revision petition is barred by limitation and application to seek condonation of delay in view of the aforesaid provision is not maintainable as it was not filed along with revision petition. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

10               This revision petition is dismissed in limine at the admission stage without any notice to the respondents as it has been filed beyond limitation without any application supported by affidavit.

 

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

  Presiding Member            Member                           Member