KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an application under Section 17, of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, preferred against the order no. 17 dated 24/03/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri.

The revisionist’s case in brief is that, the OP No.1/ complainant, had filed a claim case being no. 109/S/2013, seeking compensation on the ground of medical negligence. During the pendency of the case, the revisionist noticed, that her written version needed to be amended and for which reason, she had filed a prayer for amendment of the written version and the same had been rejected vide the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the revisionist preferred this instant revision on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order.

Decision with reason

Ld. Advocate for the revisionist, at the time of final hearing, had submitted, that for proper adjudication, the amendment of the written version, had become necessary for which reason, the prayer for amendment of the written version had been made, but the same had been rejected vide the impugned order, after hearing the petition online/phone. It was further argued, that the amendment sought for would not alter the nature of the written version, but the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, had failed to appreciate the same, on the ground, that allowing the amendment would have jeopardized the rights accrued to the OP No. 2/ complainant. He had relied in the judgment passed in Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank NV & Ors. Reported in AIR 2007 SC 2511 and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Vs. KK Mohi & Ors. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 1647.

The OP No. 1/ complainant, did not appear to contest the revision and the revision was taken up for ex-parte hearing.

OPs No. 2 and 3, also did not appear to contest the revision for which reason the case was taken up for ex-parte hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the proforma Ops No. 4 and 5, challenged the instant revision mainly on the ground of delay and prayed for dismissing the revision in limini. He had relied in the judgment passed in Jet Air Ways India Ltd. Vrs. Airport Authority in appeal no. FA /2017/ 274 by the Hon’ble Chattisgarh, SCDRC, Pandri, Raipur and Vandan Paresh Kumar Manghita Vs. The Division Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. By the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014 (4) CLT 254.

To decide a case on revision, where only the legal propriety of the order impugned, needs to be decided, no time limit for doing so, has been prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act, or is required, as the revisionist authority can also interfere suo moto, without any application from the concerned parties. Therefore, this contention on behalf of the proforma OPs no. 4 and 5, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the citations relied upon do not come to their rescue.

Now with regard to be amendment sought by the revisionist, through her petition dated 17/02/2022, a copy of which is lying in the record, clearly show, that they are general in nature and not trying to make out a new case, which could have been prejudicial to the OP No. 1/complainant’s case. Since the amendment sought for are general and routine in nature and the trial before the Ld. Lower Forum has not even started, causing prejudice or removing the rights accrued to the OP no. 1/ complainant, as observed in the impugned order, does not arise. Under the circumstance, the impugned order does appear to suffer from illegality and irregularity and is liable to set aside However, since the revisionist had preferred this amendment after a long gap the OP NO. 1/complainant, also should be compensated with adequate costs.

As a result, the instant revision succeeds.

It is therefore,

                                                                                    ORDERED

That the instant revision be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP No. 1, 2 and 3 and allowed on contest against proforma Ops. No. 4 and 5, with cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to be payable by the revision to the OP NO.1/complainant.

The impugned order here by set aside.

The Ld. Trial Forum shall incorporate the amended portion, mentioned in petition dated 17/02/2022, after payment of the cost imposed above, shall start the trial immediately and dispose the matter, without any further delay.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, for necessary action.