Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/99/2022

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Bharti Devi - Opp.Party(s)

Prateek Kasliwal

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 99/2022

 

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Ltd. Through Br. Manager, 4^th floor, Anindya building, (Vishal Mart) Meershah Ali, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

Vs.

Smt. Bharti Devi w/o late Pawansingh Chauhan r/o Gali Shiv Mandir, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer 305801.

 

Date of Order 17.6.2022

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Acting President

Hon'ble Mr. Ramphool Gurjar - Member

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Rajwania learned counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, ACTING PRESIDENT )

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ opposite party insurance company against the judgment of learned District Consumer Commission, Ajmer dated 28.5.2019 in Complaint Case No. 104 /2019 whereby the learned DCC has ordered to proceed ex-parte against the appellant insurance company.

 

As per the office report this appeal was filed with delay of 968 days. This Commission vide order dated 23.3.2022 after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant on application seeking condonation of delay, on the basis of office order no. 07/2022 dated 14.1.2022 of the Hon'ble NCDRC which was issued in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition (civil) No. 3 of 2020 on the point of extention of limitation, has allowed the application and condoned the delay subject to objection of the respondent. On the above date this Commission has admitted the appeal and ordered to issue notice to the respondent whereupon notices were issued to the respondent for 4.5.2022. The notices were issued on 31.3.2022 through registered AD but since the post was not received back served or unserved as such upon

 

3

 

passage of more than one months' time the presumption regarding service was made and the matter was listed for final arguments.

 

Record of the learned DCC Ajmer was called for. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that address on which the notices of complaint were sent was already changed. To substantiate it the learned counsel for the appellant refers the copy of lease deed dated 7.6.2010 and the copy of the letter of termination of lease deed dated 23.1.2017. He also contends that on the AD available on the record of learned DCC only initial of somebody are reveal with date 12/4 and no stamp of the appellant insurance company is available thereupon. As such this AD cannot be considered as proof of service of notice of the complaint on the appellant insurance company.

 

We have pondered upon the above contentions and have gone through the record.

 

4

 

So far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, this Commission vide its order dated 23.3.2022 allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to objection of the respondent and since respondent complainant is not present before this Commission in appeal as such we find that no objection of the respondent complainant is available on record. As such the delay in filing the appeal is deemed to have been condoned by this Commission.

 

So far as contention regarding change of address and insufficient service upon the appellant/opposite party insurance company is concerned, from the documents adduced in appeal in respect of the address of the appellant insurance company and the AD available on the record of the learned DCC, we come to the conclusion that service of notice on the appellant insurance company has not been properly carried out and the circumstances in which ex-parte proceedings have been ordered to be undertaken against the appellant insurance company does not appear to be legal and proper.

 

On the basis of above discussions, having regard to the

 

5

 

principles of natural justice, we deem it proper that appellant insurance company be afforded with the opportunity to file its averments and evidence before the learned DCC Ajmer in this complaint so that a justifiable decision can be passed by the learned DCC Ajmer in this matter.

 

As such the appeal is hereby allowed and the order dated 28.5.2019 passed by the learned DCC Ajmer is hereby set aside and it is hereby ordered that the appellant insurance company be allowed to file its reply to the complaint of respondent complainant and subsequently allow the appellant to adduce its evidence also. It is hereby made clear that the respondent complainant shall be given a chance to file additional pleadings if any, to the reply submitted by the appellant insurance company and shall also be allowed to file rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the appellant insurance company.

 

It is further made clear that the appellant insurance company shall file its reply before the learned DCC within one month from the date of the order in this appeal. The

 

6

 

learned DCC is also directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously.

 

(Ramphool Gurjar) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Acting President

 

nm