Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Ravishankar, Presiding Member and Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, Member
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Vijay Kumar – Respondent
Revision Petition No.RP/42 of 2021
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/03/2021 in Case No.CC/102/2019 of District Mandya)
Decided on 19.7.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Smt. Manoj Kumar M.R., Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If bonafide reason is found for non-appearance before Distt. Commission, proceedings can be reinstated with discretion of the State Commission.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)(b)] – Revision Petition – Petitioner appealed to State Commission that his Counsel was residing in Mysore and wasn’t able to travel due to restrictions imposed to curb the spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Petitioner got an ex-parte order allowing Interlocutory Application – Complaint made to Distt. Commission – Distt. Commission dismissed the IA - Petitioner requested a chance to present his case before the Distt. Commission and was granted but with Rs.5,000 to be paid to the complainant for appearing during reinstatement of the proceedings. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8)
Result: Revision Petition Allowed. Distt. Commission order set aside; Petitioner asked to present his case before the District Commission on the allotted date.
ORDER
Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, Member.—This Revision Petition is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated: 30.03.2021 passed by Mandya District Consumer Commission in C.C. No. 102/2019.
2. The advocate for Revision Petitioner submits that the complainant being the registered owner/insured of Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-11/EN-1452 had succumbed due to injuries on 31.05.2019 in respect of road accident occurred on 16.05.2019. Subsequently, the complainant submitted a claim towards personal accident to owner cum driver. However, the complainant as per Section III of policy terms and conditions, failed to produce the relevant documents. The Revision Petitioner addressed a letter dated:12.12.2019 to forward the relevant documents to the complainant, but the complainant instead of forwarding relevant documents preferred the complaint before the District Commission, Manday seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with 18% interest from 31.05.2019 with Rs.1,00,000/- conveyance, mental agony charges.
2(a) The advocate for Revision Petitioner further submitted that after service of notice, the advocate appeared for Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party and filed the vakalath on 03.01.2020 before District Commission, Mandya. The matter was posted on 23.01.2020 for Opposite Party’s version and on 13.02.2020, a last chance of version of Opposite Party and on 28.02.2020 for version of Opposite Party finally. But the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party not filed the version and the case was posted for evidence affidavit of complainant on 26.03.2020.
2(b) The advocate for revision petitioner/Opposite Party further submitted that on 01.12.2020 the advocate for Repetition petitioner/Opposite Party before the District Commission, Mandya present and filed an application U/s 151 C.P.C seeking permission to file the version in District Commission. The Hon’ble District Commission accepted the application and matter is posted for objection to IA on 14.12.2020. The complainant on 06.01.2021 filed objections to IA and matter was posted for hearing on I.A. on 25.01.2021. Thereafter the District commission adjourned the matter on 04.03.2021 and on 30.03.2021 dismissed the IA filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, Mandya, the Revision Petition is filed by the Opposite Party No.1 to set-aside the order of the District Commission, Mandya.
4. Heard advocate for Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 on admission. Issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
5. The counsel for Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party submitted that the counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner before the Hon’ble District Commission was residing at Mysore and was unable to attend the matter before the District Commission at Mandya due to pandemic Covid-19, but without considering the reason assigned in the I.A., the District Commission dismissed the application on 30.03.2021 and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission, Mandya.
6. Perused the order sheet of District Commission, Mandya, it is seen that the District Commission, Mandya provided 45 days to the revision petitioner/Opposite Party to file version. In spite of that, the revision petitioner/Opposite Party not filed his objection/version. Hence, the District Commission posted the matter for evidence of complainant and on 01.12.2020 the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party filed an application U/s 151 of CPC seeking permission to file the version and District commission dismissed the said application filed by Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.
7. We agree that the Consumer Court has no power to extend the time for filing the version beyond 45 days without sufficient reason. However, keeping in the view the reason assigned by the revision petitioner/Opposite Party that the counsel representing the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party before the District Commissi
