These 2(two) Revision Petitions are directed against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal (for short District Forum) dated 20.04.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2019 (for short the Impugned order) arising out of Consumer Complaint Case No. 17 of 2016 (for short Consumer Complaint). In view of the common points of facts and law involved in the above stated Revision Petitions, we are going to dispose of both the revision petitions by this common judgment and order.
2. The concise facts sufficient for deciding the present Revision Petitions are that the present respondent No.1 in both the Revision Petitions filed Consumer Complaint Case No. 17 of 2016 (for short the Consumer Complaint) before the Ld. District Forum against (i) the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 3 namely HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Limited having its office at Upper Ground Floor. Mayur Garden, ABC Bus Stop, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, P.O. Dispur P.S. Jalukbari, Guwahati-781005 (for short HDFC, ERGO) and (ii) HDFC Bank, Imphal Branch at M.G. Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City P.S., Imphal West District, Manipur, (for short HDFC Bank) who has been arrayed as Respondent No.2 in both the revision petitions praying for directing the HDFC, ERGO and HDFC Bank who are Respondents/O.P.s in the Consumer Complaint to insure the vehicle namely Ashok Lelend bearing chasis no. MBICTD7CEEWL5951 and Engine No. DTEZ410596 by refunding the amount of Rs. 6,22,002/- to the Respondent No.1 in both the Revision Petitions with consequential reliefs.
3. Before the Ld. District Forum, all the parties entered their appearance through their counsels by filing their respective Vakalatnamas. The petitioner in Revision petition No.3 of 2019 namely Aribam Deni Sharma was the counsel retained by HDFC, ERGO to conduct Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. It is stated that HDFC, ERGO could not appear before the learned District Forum on every proceeding since its office is located at Guwahati. Consequently, Mr. Deni A. Sharma being a Counsel for the HDFC, ERGO filed the Misc. Case No.3 of 2019 before the District Forum on behalf of the Respondent No.1 praying for allowing to file the 7(seven) documents in support of his Written Statement. In reply to the Misc. Case No.3 of 2019, the Complainant who is the respondent no.1 in both the present Revision Petitions filed the Written Objection on 16th March, 2019 whereby replying that K. NILO SINGH who is the original owner of NILO MOTORS had already expired in the year 2010 and in the year 2014, there is no person/official by the name of K. Nilo Singh.
4. It is alleged in both Revision Petitions that the Ld. District Forum without considering the submission of the petitioner passed the impugned Order dated 20.04.2019. The impugned order dated 20.04.2019 of the District Forum is reproduced herein below:-
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IMPHAL DISTRICT
MISC. CASE NO. 3 OF 2019
REF.:- COMPLAINT CASE NO. 17 OF 2016
M/S K. Nilo Singh having its registered office at Hotel Nirmala Complex, M.G. Avenue, Imphal P.O. Imphal & P.S. City P.S., Imphal West District, Manipur represented by its Managing partner, Shri Koijam Gopendro Singh S/O Late K. Nilo Singh, a resident of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai, Imphal, P.O. and P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Complainant/Petitioner
-Versus-
1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Limited having its office at Upper Ground Floor. Mayur Garden, ABC Bus Stop, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, P.O. Dispur P.S. Jalukbari, Guwahati-781005 represented by its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank, Imphal Branch at M.G. Avenue, Imphal, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City P.S., Imphal West District, Manipur.
Respondents/Ops
Date of Order: 20.04.2019
The Misc. Application filed by the conducting Counsel, Mr. A. Deni Sharma of the Respondent No.1, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking leave of the Court/Forum for producing the following documents in support of the defence:
Particulars of the documents:
- True copy of Endorsement Request Form.
- Letter of K. Nilo Singh dated 31/10/2014.
- True copy of Certificate.
- True copy letter by Nilo Motors.
- True copy of R.C. Book.
- Screen Shot of the Registration from the National Registration
Portal.
- Photographs of accident vehicle etc.
The Applicant/Respondent seeking to file the above listed documents in support of the defense, resisting the case of the Complainant however, the Complainant’s Counsel has strongly objected the move citing the ground that the proposed documents are all manufactured documents prepared by the officials or by the Respondent No.1, itself to substantiate their case. The letter addressed to the Manager, HDFC ERGO bearing dated 31/10/2014 alleged to have been signed by one K. Nilo Singh, is said to be a manufactured and tempered one, may be by the Respondent No.1 or any one of its Officials whatever it is because there is no such person/official who worked or employed in the Firm of M/S K. Nilo Motors. The person, by the name of K. Nilo Singh is/was the original owner of Nilo Motors naturally expired (passed away) in the year 2010 at his residence at Uripok, Imphal West.
Here, we may reflect and note down that the said and written letter bearing dated 31/10/2014 alleged to have been written by K. Nilo Singh, the father of the Complainant Shri Koijam Gopendro Singh of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai, Imphal, Manipur which is enclosed in Misc. Application under reference filed by the conducting Counsel Deni Sharma for the Respondent No.1 is minutely examined by us as disclosed by the OP/Complainant and we found and assessed it as forged document since the said K. Nilo Singh the father of the Complainant who died long back, wrote such a letter to the Respondent No.1, HDFC ERGO is unimaginable one because it cannot be happened in the real life.
There is no point or ground to rely on and consider the prayer since the letter bearing dated 31/10/2014 alleged to have been signed by a death man is required to be examined and ascertained whether this letter is forged one or manufactured by any one of the Respondent No.1’s side or by the Counsel who has signed the Misc. Application may be, knowingly or unknowingly or intentionally whatever the case may be.
A strongly raising and contended the issue of manufacturing the letter forging the signature of the late K. Nilo Singh, the Applicant Deni Aribam the Counsel of the Respondent No.1, remains unexplained to the question thereby, creating a cause of concerned to this adjudicatory Forum and thereafter, to clear the cloud cast upon the matter has to be verified in an appropriate manner taking the opinion from a Forensic Expert in other words a Statutory Body by sending the letter in a sealed envelope to ascertain fact and the truth.
The said Counsel himself signed in the Misc. Application consisting of 7 Nos. of documents not by the Respondent No.1, HDFC ERGO and as such he (Counsel) has to explain and clarify the question raised by the Complainant’s Counsel.
Last but not the least the plea of the Complainant is correct and true then an appropriate legal proceeding is to be initiated against the Counsel signing the Misc. Application and filed seeking for filing of 7 Nos. of documents.
In the result, we hold that the Application so moved by the conducting Counsel Mr. Deni A. Sharma is out-rightly rejected since the letter dated 31/10/2014 requires to be verified through a Statutory Body and decide the matter justifiably for ends of justice.
Accordingly, this Misc. Application stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President
5. Upon notice the respondents entered their appearance through their counsels on 27.11.2019. Comments from the District Forum, Imphal was also called vide order dated 06.11.2019. Records from the District Forum was duly received on 25.11.2019.
In the above stated report dated 25.11.2019, the learned District Forum amongst others stated that K. Nilo Singh expired on 25.06.2010 as ascertained from the photograph affixed above the main door of the residence of the said K. Nilo Singh and invitation card of his Sharadha Ceremony. The Learned District Forum referring to the order dated 20.04.2019 further stated that the opinion of Forensic Expert would be necessary to verify the signature of K. Nilo Singh in the said letter/document and as such appropriate order be passed by the State Commission.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides at length. We have also perused the memorandum of argument submitted by Deni. A. Sharma who is the petitioner in Revision Petition No.2 of 2019. The other parties did not file their respective written arguments inspite of giving ample opportunities to them.
The petitioner, Deni A. Sharma has filed an application on behalf of his client HDFC, ERGO on 23.01.2021 before this Commission praying for allowing to withdraw the letter/document dated 31.03.2014 and to admit/ to take on record the remaining 6(six) documents listed in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2019 before the District Forum, Imphal for proceeding during the trial of the Complaint Case No. 17 of 2016 before the District Forum, Imphal.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Revision Petition No.2 of 2019 contended that the above said documents were filed by Deni A. Sharma on behalf of the respondent no.1 whose office is located at Upper Ground floor, Mayur Garden, ABC Bus stop, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati since HDFC ERGO could not appear and come on every date of hearing of the Complaint case before the District Forum, Imphal. It is further contended that the said documents would be deemed to have been filed by HDFC ERGO and as such, learned District Forum does not have any jurisdiction to pass the order against the conducting counsel for HDFC ERGO. It is further contended that whether the document is a forged one or not is to be decided through the opinion of an expert but learned District Forum is neither an expert nor an authority to conclude that the said letter dated 31.10.2014 is a forged document. It was also observed by the learned District Forum that the matter is to be verified in an appropriate manner by taking opinion from a forensic expert. On the other hand, the learned District Forum has given a wrong finding regarding the genuineness of the said letter against the conducting counsel of respondent no.1. In the event of the disputed letter dated 31.10.2014 is considered as a forged one, the learned District Forum ought to consider and accept/admit the remaining documents on record for proceeding in the Consumer Complaint as the said documents are important and relevant with the present case. It is further submitted that the adverse remarks reflected in the impugned order against the conducting counsel is not based on any legal provisions.
With the above said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order or to modify the said impugned order dated 20/04/2017 by expunging the adverse remarks made against the Petitioner and allow to file the remaining 6 (six) nos. of documents in the file of Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2016 before the Learned District Forum, Imphal for proceeding.
8. The learned counsel for respondents have not disputed/countered the rival submission made by the petitioner in regard to the expunging the adverse remarks made by the Learned District Forum, Imphal against the learned counsel namely Aribam Deni Sharma. They have also conceded that the impugned order did not reflect any observation or order regarding admission or rejection of the remaining 6 (six) documents proposed to be filed by the learned counsel A. Deni Sharma. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents that A. Deni Sharma being the counsel of the HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. has the authority/locus standii to sign/file the Misc. Application No. 3 of 2019 before the District Forum, Imphal and that the said application along with the documents should be deemed to have been filed by A. Deni Sharma for and on behalf of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.. In other words, the 7(seven) documents enclosed in the said Misc. Case No. 3 of 2019 were supplied to A. Deni Sharma by the said HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.. According to the learned District Forum, there would be no ground to rely on and consider the prayer made by A. Deni Sharma for filing of 7 (seven) documents since the letter dated 31.10.2014 was allegedly signed by a dead person without examination and ascertaining “whether this letter is forged one or manufactured by any one of the respondent no.1’s side or by the counsel who has signed the Misc. Application may be knowingly or unknowingly or intentionally whatever the case may be” as reflected by the Ld. District Forum at para no.5 of the impugned order dated 20.04.2019.
Again at para no. 6 of the impugned order dated 20.04.2019, the learned District Forum made its observation for sending the said letter for expert opinion. The District Forum also noted that a proper legal proceeding is to be initiated against the counsel A. Deni Sharma who signed the Misc. Application No.3 of 2019 and move the said application for filing seven documents. In view of the said observations, the learned District Forum rejected the Misc. Case No. 3 of 2019 on the grounds that the letter dated 31.10.2014 requires to be verified by a statutory body.
With the above said submissions, the learned counsel for respondents has prayed for passing appropriate orders.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and keeping in view of the provisions of Section 17 (1)(b), we are of the considered view that the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Imphal should not have passed the impugned order 20.04.2019 for initiating legal proceeding against the counsel namely A. Deni Sharma for signing the application dated 24.01.2019 registered as Misc. Case No.3 of 2019 seeking to file 7(seven) nos. of documents since the disputed documents i.e. letter dated 31.10.2014 would be deemed to have been supplied by HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. and being counsel A. Deni Sharma signed the application and moved the same before the District Forum in terms of the Vakalatnama duly signed and filed by the said HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. before the District Forum, Imphal.
10. On perusal of the impugned order it is also found that the learned District Forum, Imphal did not passed/reflect any order/observation relating to admission/rejection of the remaining 6 documents other than the letter/documents dated 31.10.2014. We have also perused the 7(seven) documents which were sought to be filed by the petitioner in the Misc. Case No.3 of 2019 before the District Forum, Imphal and the application dated 23.01.2021 to withdraw the letter/document dated 31.10.2014 and to admit/take the remaining 6 (six) documents on record for proceeding. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and a perusal of the provisions of order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, it is ordered that the letter/document dated 31.03.2014 would be allowed to be withdrawn in the ends of justice since the withdrawal of the said document shall not prejudice the other parties. It is further ordered that the Learned District Forum shall accept/admit/take the remaining 6 (six) documents on the file of the Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2016 for proceeding since the said documents, would be material, useful and helpful while determining and deciding the real points of Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2016.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the passing of the impugned order dated 20.04.2019 by the District Forum would amount to exercising its jurisdiction so vested with material irregularity and illegality. Thus, we have no alternative but to set aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal in Misc. Case No.3 of 2019 arising out of Complaint Case No. 17 of 2016 with the direction to accept/admit and take the remaining 6 (six) documents on the file of Consumer Complaint Case No. 17 of 2016 for proceeding during trial.
12. As proposed by the learned counsel for both sides, the learned District Forum is hereby directed to dispose of the Consumer Complaint as expeditiously as possible preferably within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order even by posting the Complaint Case for hearing on every working day through Video Conferencing or otherwise inasmuch as disposal of present Revision Petitions took more than the statutory time frame due to outbreak of Covid-19.
13. Revision Petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above and the same are disposed of with no orders as to costs.
14. Registry is directed to send back the record of the Complaint Case No.17 of 2016 to the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal now District Commission, Imphal immediately along with a copy of this Judgment and order.
15. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum, Imphal on 14.09.2021 without fail.
