Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member
The instant Revision Petition has been preferred at the behest of the Revisionist TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited (who was OP No. 3 in the complaint case) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 25.01.2019 vide order no. 3 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah in connection with Complaint Case no. CC/407/2018 wherein and whereby Ld. Forum below was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Order No. 3
25.01.2019
Complainant and OP No. 2 file hazira. OP No. 3 takes no step and no W/V is also filed by OP No. 3. None appears on call on behalf of OP No. 3. Hence, let the case be proceeded ex parte against OP No. 3.
OP No. 1 enters appears today filing vokalatnama and prays for time for filing W/V. Prayer is considered and allowed.
Fix 07.03.2019 for appearance and for filing W/V by OP No. 1.”
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order of the Ld. Forum below the Revisionist/OP No. 3 has filed the present Revision Petition praying for allowing the same after setting aside the order impugned.
In the Revision Petition the Revisionist has contended that the Revisionist/Petitioner is a General Insurance Company duly licenced by IRDA and the present Revisionist appeared before the Ld. Forum at Howrah on 20.12.2018 after receiving the notice and also filed vokalatnama and prayed for time to file written version. Ld. Forum below was pleased to fix the next date on 25.01.2019 for filing written version by the present Revisionist/OP No. 3 and service return for other OPs. Unfortunately, on the next date i.e. on 25.01.2019 the Revisionist’s Advocate on record could not attend the learned Forum’s Court due to mis-posting in the diary and also on the ground of suffering from fever. Resultantly, Ld. Forum below was pleased to fix the next date for proceeding with the complaint case ex parte against the Revisionist/OP No. 3.
It has been categorically contended by the Revisionist/OP No. 3 that they filed written version before the Ld. Forum below and the next date was fixed on 07.03.2019 for acceptance of the petition and the Ld. Forum below was pleased to observe that the written version was not filed within the stipulated period and as such kept the written version with the case record. According to the Revisionist/OP No. 3 there were no intentional laches or negligence in filing the written version from the end of the Revisionist/OP No. 3.
Revisionist/OP No. 3 has further contended that the Ld. Forum below has acted illegality with material irregularity in passing the impugned order; that the Ld. Forum below has totally failed to consider that the Revisionist/OP No. 3 appeared in the complaint case on the very first date and subsequently filed their written version; that the Ld. Forum below passed the impugned order without giving the Revisionist/OP No. 3 an opportunity to file written version; that the Ld. Forum below has also failed to consider that there was no laches on the part of the Revisionist/OP No. 3 in not filing the written version within the stipulated period from the date of receipt of the notice; that the Ld. Forum below has failed to give the Revisionist/OP No. 3 an opportunity to contest the complaint case on merit; that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. On all such grounds the Revisionist has prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the order impugned.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Revisionist/Insurance Company Limited has submitted that the present Revisionist/OP No. 3 will be seriously prejudiced from the opportunity of being heard if the Revisionist is not allowed to contest the complaint case by accepting the written version. Drawing my attention to the order dated 7th March, 2019 vide order no. 4 Ld. Counsel has vehemently urged that on that particular date the present Revisionist as OP No. 3 submitted the written version (Annexure F) and also filed an application praying for vacating the ex parte order passed against him. According to the Ld. Counsel the present Revisionist has a very good prima facie case to face the trial. He has prayed for accepting the written version (which is lying with the case record) after vacating the ex parte order passed on 25.01.2019.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1/Complainant has strenuously argued that the complaint case has been dragging since 2018 and the Revisionist/Petitioner wilfully did not submit the written version within the stipulated period and as such the Ld. Forum below was pleased to proceed with the complaint case ex parte against the Revisionist/OP No. 3. He has also submitted that the contention of the Revision Petition is totally fabricated, false, manufactured and created with the intention to drag the complaint proceeding. It has been also argued that the Ld. Forum below was absolutely right in the approach and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. He has prayed for outright rejection of the Revision Petition with compensatory costs.
Considered the submissions of both sides.
Perused the materials available on record.
Seen the impugned order and other orders on record.
Undoubtedly, the impugned order was passed on 25.01.2019 by the Ld. Forum below and the complaint case was proceeded ex parte against OP No. 3 i.e. the Revisionist herein. The next order dated 7th March, 2019 vide order no. 4 goes to indicate that on that particular date the present Revisionist as OP no. 3 filed the written version with a prayer for vacating the ex parte order and those were kept with the record with the observation that the Ld. Forum has no power to review/recall its own order. Astonishingly, no rejection order was passed against the prayers of OP No. 3. We do not find any reason or justification as to why Ld. Forum below allowed the OP No. 3 to file their written statement along with the prayer for vacating the ex parte order. There is also no cogent reason as to why those petitions were kept with the record without giving specific order. It is expected that the written version ought to have been filed within the stipulated period but in the present case the Ld. Forum below despite passing ex parte order against OP No. 3 allowed OP No. 3 to file the written version beyond the stipulated period. No rejection order was passed against these applications of OP No. 3. Fact remains that non-accepting of the written version (which is lying with the case record) and non-vacating the ex parte order may cause irreparable loss and injury to the Revisionist/OP No. 3. In our considered view an opportunity should be given to the Revisionist/OP No. 3 to contest the complaint case on merit after accepting the written version.
We are not unmindful to give caution to the Revisionist/OP No. 3 that the Revisionist/OP No. 3 shall be more careful and diligent to conduct the complaint case in a serious manner in the near future. The impugned order is liable to set aside for just, proper and effective adjudication of the complaint case.
Resultantly, the present Revision Petition succeeds and the impugned order deserves interference of this Commission.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the present Revision Petition being No. 61/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) payable to Respondent No. 1/Complainant by the Revisionist/OP No. 3.
Ld. Forum below is directed to accept the written version which is lying with the complaint case after vacating the ex parte order passed on 25.01.2019 vide order no. 3.
The parties to this Revision Petition are directed to appear before the Ld. DCDRC, Howrah on 10.02.2023 for receiving further order/orders. Ld. Forum below is directed to dispose of the complaint case as expeditiously as possible.
The impugned order dated 25.01.2019 vide order no. 3 is thus set aside.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. Commission below forthwith for information and taking necessary action.
Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.
Note accordingly.
