BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :     MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 216/2023

V/s

ORDER ON ADMISSION

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.29.11.2022 passed in CC.No.189/2022 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada which rejected the application to permit them to file version and submits that the complainant being a nominee to the insured had claimed for an assured amount by virtue of the policy.  The said claim was rejected against which the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and filed a complaint before the District Commission.  After admission, the District Commission issued notice against this appellant for appearance and to file version accordingly, on 15.10.2022 this appellant appeared through their counsel and filed an application to permit them to file version in the interest of justice and equity.  The said application was rejected on 29.11.2022 though the application is filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of notice from the District Commission.  They got good case to urge their defence.  Hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

3.      On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order of the District Commission, we noticed that the District Commission issued a notice against this appellant for their appearance to file version.  Accordingly, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel by filing vakalath on 15.10.2022 and at the time of filing vakalath, this appellant also filed an application u/s 151 of CPC to permit them to file version.  After acceptance of the application, the District Commission provided an opportunity to the complainant to file objections in this regard.  Accordingly, the objection was also filed on the subsequent date.  After hearing, the District Commission dismissed the application filed by the appellant and not accepted the version.  We noticed here that the notice issued by the respondent was served and they appeared through their counsel on 15.10.2022.  On the same day, they have chosen to file version along with application.  The said application was rejected.  In the endorsement it is noticed that the notice to Opposite Party served on 31.08.2022.  We found that from 31.08.2022 if we calculate 45 days limit for filing version, it is on 15.10.2022 it is going to be closed.  On the last day i.e. 15.10.2022 this appellant had filed an application to permit them to file version along with version.  The District Commission could have accepted version by allowing an application instead of that had provided an opportunity to the complainant to file objections which according to us is not mandatory.  When the application was filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of notice, the District Commission could have allowed the application and accepted the version instead of that had rejected.  Hence, the order passed by the District Commission lacks legality.  Hence, we consider the version of the appellant is within 45 days from the date of receipt of notice, hence, the Order passed by the District Commission to file version is hereby set aside.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The District Commission is hereby directed to accept the version of the appellant/Opposite Party and proceed with the matter in accordance with the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to dispose of the case expeditiously.

Forward free copies to both parties.

       Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*