Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/14/03

KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANDEEP GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    REVISION PETITION NO. 03 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 28.11.2013 passed in C.C.No.271/2013 by the District Commission, Bhopal)

 

KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.                                                                      …          PETITIONER.

 

Versus

                 

SANDEEP GUPTA & ANOTHER.                                                                                            …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S.S.BANSAL                                        :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

11.01.2021

 

          Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            None for the respondents.

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :            

                        This revision petition arises out of the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.271/2013 whereby the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner/opposite party no.3 on the ground that the opposite party though was duly served of notice of complaint did not appear and file reply within 30 days from the date of service of notice. 

2.                Having gone through the impugned order and the record of the District Commission, we find that the petitioner was duly served on 10.09.2013 but failed to appear and file reply within 30 days from the date of service of notice of complaint so on 28.11.2013 the District Commission had proceeded ex-parte

 

-2-

against the petitioner.  In our considered view, the District Commission has committed no error in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner/opposite party.

3.                Our view is supported by the decision of the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd  II (2020) CPJ 1 (SC)  wherein it is stated in paragraph 41 that:

                        “41.  To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.”

 

4.                In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition stands dismissed.

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)               (S. S. Bansal)           

                          President                                      Member