KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 375/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 30.06.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 120/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Micro Office, 1st Floor, Peevees Building, Kuttipuram Road, Valancheri, Malappuram P.O., Pin-676 552 represented by Sreedevi, Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-I, LMS Compound, Museum Road, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Abdu, S/o Saidali, Pothipurathu House, Painkannur P.O., Valancheri Malappuram-676 552.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 120 of 2022 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (referred as District Commission). The District Commission has directed the opposite party to refund an amount of 3,20,983/- with interest @ 9% per annum and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the registered owner of Innova car bearing Reg. No. KL 54 D 9491 which was insured with the opposite party. On 04.11.2020 the vehicle met with an accident and the complainant incurred an expense to the tune of Rs. 3,01,680/- for repairing the damaged vehicle. The accident occurred during the validity period of the policy. The surveyor had assessed the loss on account of the damage sustained to the vehicle. But the opposite party declined to settle the claim. Later, the complainant received a letter from the opposite party that his claim was repudiated. Hence he filed a complaint before the District Commission for realization of Rs. 3,20,983/- along with interest @ 12% and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. The appellant would allege that the vehicle was rented out to one Ismail from whose possession the accident had taken place. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the vehicle cannot be rented out and hence the claim was repudiated by the opposite party.
4. The appellant failed to appear on the first hearing date of the case. So the District Commission had set the appellant ex-parte. Later an application was filed before the District Commission as I.A. No. 575/2022 which was also dismissed and thereafter the impugned order was passed.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellant, perused the memorandum of appeal and copy of the order passed by the District Commission. On perusal of the copy of the order passed by the District Commission it could be seen that the notice issued by the District Commission was acknowledged by the appellant on 25.04.2020, but the appellant had filed an application along with version only on 11.08.2022. (The date of receipt of notice noted as 25.04.2020 can only be understood as a clerical mistake since the accident is alleged to have occurred on 04.11.2020). So it could be seen that the version was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory period fixed by the Consumer Protection Act. The legal position in this regard is well settled by the Authoritative Judicial Pronouncement of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by the Apex Court the District Commission has no authority to extend the period for filing the version. The order passed by the District Commission would show that the version was filed by the appellant after elapse of the statutory period. So the District Commission was perfectly justified in declining to accept the version. No purpose will be served by admitting this appeal since the appellant has no right to contest the matter on merits as their version was not filed before the District Commission within the statutory time limit. So we are not inclined to admit the appeal by calling for records from the District Commission.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is permitted to get back the statutory deposit made by them as the appeal has not been admitted.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
