Kerala

StateCommission

RP/91/2022

United India Insuance Company Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yesoda C H - Opp.Party(s)

Sreevaraham G Satheesh

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
Revision Petition No. RP/91/2022
( Date of Filing : 14 Dec 2022 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/11/2022 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/5/2022 of District Palakkad)
 
1. United India Insuance Company Ltd
United India Tower,Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh
2. Managing Director,united India Insurance Company Ltd.
United India Tower,Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Yesoda C H
Kallekkulangara.P.O,Palakkad
2. M/S Health Insurance TPA of India
A 110 sector 4 Noida UP-201301.
3. Authorised signatory,M/S Health Insurance TPA of India Ltd
Noida
4. Manager Union Bank of India
Dr.pattabi bhavan,sazfabad,Khairatabad,Hydhrabad.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER
  SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER
  SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER
  SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 16 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 91/2022

ORDER DATED: 16.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 5/2022 of CDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

 

  1. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7th Floor, United India Tower, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 

 

  1. Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office, 7th Floor, United India Tower, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

 

                                                    (By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

 

  1. Yesoda C.H., W/o Govindan, 8/359, Sivananda Ashramam Road, Kallekkulangara P.O., Palakkad.

 

  1. M/s Health Insurance TPA of India, 2nd Floor, Majestic Omania Building, A 110, Sector 4, Noida-201 301.

 

  1. Authorized Signatory, M/s Health Insurance TPA of India, 2nd Floor, Majestic Omania Building, A 110, Sector 4, Noida-201 301.

 

  1. Manager, Union Bank of India, Dr. Pattabi Bhavan, Sazfabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

 

 

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

 

The opposite parties are in revision.  The revision petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2022 in C.C. No. 05/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short).  According to the revision petitioners, the opposite parties had entered appearance before the District Commission on 12.04.2022.  However, thereafter the matter was posted before the Adalath for exploring the possibility of a settlement.  It is submitted that the matter was being adjourned thereafter for various reasons.  It was only on 14.09.2022 that the version was filed.  However, the District Commission did not accept the version, since it was filed beyond the time limit stipulated by law. 

2.  According to the learned counsel, the District Commission ought to have taken into account the time that the matter stood posted before the Adalath and should have given allowance for the said period by excluding the time from the computation of the limitation period stipulated for filing version.

3.  Heard.  In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 the contention of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted.  The dictum of the Apex Court is to the effect that, the time limit for filing version by an opposite party cannot be extended by any authority beyond the statutory limit.  There is also no provision for excluding the time that has been taken to settle the matter.  The opposite party is at liberty to settle the matter even now.  However, the order of the District Commission declining to accept the version filed beyond the time limit cannot be found fault with.  We do not find any ground to interfere with the order under revision.  Therefore this revision is dismissed. 

 

                                                          Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT                

                                                         Sd/-

                        T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                         Sd/-

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER                           

                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                       BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                    RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[ SRI.RANJIT.R]
MEMBER
 
 
[ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A]
MEMBER
 
 
[ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.