Delhi

StateCommission

RP/113/2016

M/S AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. REKHA PANJANI - Opp.Party(s)

SUMAN TRIPATHY

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 17.08.2016

 

 

Revision Petition No.113/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 07.04.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.516/2014 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-X(South) New Delhi)

 

 

In the matter of:

 

M/s. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi -110001.

                           ....Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

Smt. Rekha Panjani,  

TA-235/4, Tughalakabad Extension,

New Delhi -110019.

                                                  ...Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

 

 

 

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is a petition under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) where prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the District Forum-X in CC No.516/2014, whereby the written statement of the petitioner/OP is not taken on record.

 

2. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act is filed by the respondent herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum against the petitioner herein i.e. the OP which is pending disposal. On getting the notice, the petitioner/OP had put in appearance on 3.8.15 and on the said date, copy of the complaint was supplied. Thereupon the case was adjournment for 14.12.2015 for filing written statement. On that date the written statement was not filed by the petitioner/OP and the matter was adjourned for 07.04.2016 whereby an opportunity was given to the OP for filing written statement. On 07.04.2016, the petitioner/OP had presented written statement, however, the same was not taken on record by noting that the same was to be filed within 45 days from the date of service of the notice and the case was adjourned to 9.8.16 for evidence of the respondent/complainant. Aggrieved with the order dated 07.04.2016, whereby the written statement was not taken on record, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/OP has submitted that the District Forum had itself granted time on 14.12.2015 for filing written statement and fixed the matter for the said purpose for 07.04.2016. It is stated that on 07.04.2016 when petitioner/OP wanted to file written statement, the same was not taken on record on the ground that the same was to be filed within 45 days from the date of service of notice. Ld. Counsel submits that at the time of receipt of notice of the complaint, the judgement of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 1 (2016) CPJ 1 (SC)          was not passed.  Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/OP has further submitted that the District Forum itself had given time for filing written statement on 14.12.15 and had adjourned the matter for said purpose for 7.4.16.  It is submitted that petitioner/OP should not be made to suffer for lapse on the part of court.
4. Sh. S.H. Isfahani, amicus currae for respondent has submitted that order passed is correct and present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum is reproduced as under:

 

          “14.12.15

          Pr. Complainant in person

          Ld. Counsel for OP.

 

WS not filed. One more opportunity is given to OP to file WS for 07.04.16.

 

 

6. As per aforesaid order, Ld. District Forum itself has given opportunity to the petitioner/OP to file written statement and the matter was adjourned for 07.04.2016. Reading the order, it is clear that petitioner/OP was under the bonafide belief that time is granted for filing written statement and the matter has been adjourned for said purpose for 07.04.2016.  The order passed by Ld. District Forum specifically permits to file written statement by 07.04.2016.  The aforesaid order is not challenged by respondent/complainant.  The same has attained finality. 
7. Further it is settled law that for the mistake on the part of the Court, the party should not suffer. In the present case, maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit – an act of court shall prejudice no man, shall also be applicable.  Reliance is placed on the judgment of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs Kumar & Ors., 2005(Supp-5) SCR 349.  
8. In the interest of justice, without this order being made precedent, we accept this petition and set aside the order dated 07.04.2016 and give an opportunity to petitioner/OP to file written statement.  The petitioner/OP shall now file its written statement   within 05 days from today i.e. by 23.8.16 before the Ld. District Forum. Thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
9. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the Ld. District Forum-X (South) for information and keeping it on record for compliance.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

​