08.11.2021

ORDER ON ADMISSION

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 preferred this appeal against the Order passed on IA u/s 151 of CPC on the file of Mandya District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya in CC.No.131/2018 wherein the appellant made an application u/s 151 of CPC along with memorandum of facts to permit them to file version.  The said application was rejected vide Order dt.19.04.2021, hence, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards the death of the assured under road accident.

2.         This appellant has issued a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy vide policy bearing No.OG-18-1000-6401-00318654 which is valid from 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018 and the son of the complainant met with an accident who was riding Pulsar motorcycle and succumbed to severe injuries.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated for the reason that at the time of accident, the son of the complainant was intoxicated and driving the vehicle, hence, repudiated the claim.  Against which the complainant filed a complaint and notice was issued to the Opposite Party/ appellant.  Initially appellant after service of notice was placed exparte on 28.08.2018.  Thereafter on 28.09.2018 this appellant filed an application u/o 9 Rule-7 of CPC to set aside the Order of exparte and permit them to contest the case.  Accordingly, the IA was allowed and time was granted to file version.  But, this appellant not able to file version as provided by the District Commission, subsequently, he filed an application to permit them to file version, but, the said application was rejected illegally, hence, submits that they have got good case to urge their defence.  In the absence of their defence, the District Commission may pass an Order against them.  Hence, prayed to set aside the Order and permit them to file version.

3.         On going through the memorandum of appeal and the Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that after filing an application u/o 9 Rule-7, this appellant had not chosen to file version on the same day and subsequent date of hearing till 23.11.2018 and the District Commission taken the version as not filed.  Subsequently, the District Commission posted the complaint for affidavit evidence of complainant.  Thereafter, lapse of nearly 2 ½  years, the Opposite Party filed an application on 19.04.2021 to permit them to file version and the said application was rejected.  The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that they could not have filed the version well within time as delay in securing the required documents, hence, non-filing of the version is not intentional, but, for the bonafide reasons, hence, submits to allow the appeal.  The reasons narrated in the appeal and submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant are not acceptable.  The appellant has not explained why they have not filed the application for permission to file version as soon as the District Commission has taken the version as NIL on 23.11.2018.  It shows that the OP is very negligent and has no interest in contesting the matter.  Only on 19.04.2021, they have seriously filed an application to file version which is not acceptable as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  The stipulated time is 45 days which is provided to file version has not chosen to file defence well within the time.  Hence, we found no grounds made out.  The IA filed by the appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 is rightly rejected by the District Commission.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                                                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER