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:
- M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7th Floor, United India Tower, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
- Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office, 7th Floor, United India Tower, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Yesoda C.H., W/o Govindan, 8/359, Sivananda Ashramam Road, Kallekkulangara P.O., Palakkad.
- M/s Health Insurance TPA of India, 2nd Floor, Majestic Omania Building, A 110, Sector 4, Noida-201 301.
- Authorized Signatory, M/s Health Insurance TPA of India, 2nd Floor, Majestic Omania Building, A 110, Sector 4, Noida-201 301.
- 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