THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH).
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
Revision Petition No. 42/2021
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ld.,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Consumer Cases Cell, #44/45,
Leo Shopping Complex, 4th Floor,
Residency Road, Bangalore-560 025.
……….Appellants.
(By Shri/Smt. Manoj Kumar M.R., Adv.,)
-Versus-
Vijay Kumar S/o Guruswamy
R/o 182/A, V.C.Farm Village and Post,
Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk and Dist.
:ORDERS:
BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This Revision Petition is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated:30.03.2021 passed by Mandya District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.102/2019.
2. The advocate for Revision Petitioner submits that the complainant being the registered owner/insured of Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-11/EN-1452 had succumbed due to injuries on 31.05.2019 in respect of road accident occurred on 16.05.2019. Subsequently, the complainant submitted a claim towards personal accident to owner cum driver. However, the complainant as per Section III of policy terms and conditions, failed to produce the relevant documents. The Revision Petitioner addressed a letter dated:12.12.2019 to forward the relevant documents to the complainant, but the complainant instead of forwarding relevant documents preferred the complaint before the District Commission, Manday seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with 18% interest from 31.05.2019 with Rs.1,00,000/- conveyance, mental agony charges.
2(a) The advocate for Revision Petitioner further submitted that after service of notice, the advocate appeared for Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party and filed the vakalath on 03.01.2020 before District Commission, Mandya. The matter was posted on 23.01.2020 for Opposite Party’s version and on 13.02.2020, a last chance of version of Opposite Party and on 28.02.2020 for version of Opposite Party finally. But the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party not filed the version and the case was posted for evidence affidavit of complainant on 26.03.2020.
2(b) The advocate for revision petitioner/Opposite Party further submitted that on 01.12.2020 the advocate for Repetition petitioner/Opposite Party before the District Commission, Mandya present and filed an application U/s 151 C.P.C seeking permission to file the version in District Commission. The Hon’ble District Commission accepted the application and matter is posted for objection to IA on 14.12.2020. The complainant on 06.01.2021 filed objections to IA and matter was posted for hearing on I.A. on 25.01.2021. Thereafter the District commission adjourned the matter on 04.03.2021 and on 30.03.2021 dismissed the IA filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, Mandya, the Revision Petition is filed by the Opposite Party No.1 to set-aside the order of the District Commission, Mandya.
4. Heard advocate for Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 on admission. Issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
5. The counsel for Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party submitted that the counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner before the Hon’ble District Commission was residing at Mysore and was unable to attend the matter before the District Commission at Mandya due to pandemic Covid-19, but without considering the reason assigned in the I.A., the District Commission dismissed the application on 30.03.2021 and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission, Mandya.
6. Perused the order sheet of District Commission, Mandya, it is seen that the District Commission, Mandya provided 45 days to the revision petitioner/Opposite Party to file version. In spite of that, the revision petitioner/Opposite Party not filed his objection/version. Hence, the District Commission posted the matter for evidence of complainant and on 01.12.2020 the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party filed an application U/s 151 of CPC seeking permission to file the version and District commission dismissed the said application filed by Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.
7. We agree that the Consumer Court has no power to extend the time for filing the version beyond 45 days without sufficient reason. However, keeping in the view the reason assigned by the revision petitioner/Opposite Party that the counsel representing the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party before the District Commission, Mandya was a resident of Mysore and that due to pandemic Covid-19, he was unable to attend the matter before the District Commission. It is an unavoidable circumstance. Hence, in our opinion, it is just and proper to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission, Mandya.
8. The Advocate for revision petitioner has placed some citations and as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, it is held as under:-
“In computing the period of limitation for any suit appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days form 15.03.2021. In the evident the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days that longer period shall apply”.
9. In the present case, the lock-down period announced from March-2020 due to pandemic 2019 throughout the Country and several SOPs were issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court. Hence, the contention of Revision Petitioner due to Covid-2019, the Advocate for revision petitioner/Opposite Party not appeared before the District Commission and not filed the version can be considered sympathetically to meet the ends of justice and provide an opportunity to the revision petitioner/Opposite Party to prove his case. Hence, under the exceptional condition, it is just and proper to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission and directed the District Commission to allow the application filed by the Revision Pettioner/Opposite Party No.1 and take the version on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the complainant and proceed with the mater as per law. Accordingly,
:ORDER:
The Revision Petition is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the revision petitioner/Opposite Party to the complainant before the District Commission.
The District Commission is directed to receive the version of the revision petitioner/Opposite Party on record and proceed with the matter as per the law.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
