Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
Mrs. Anupama Dwivedi And Others – Appellants
Versus
Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Ceo – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No.4420 of 2022
Decided on : 19-07-2024
CONSUMER PROTECTION - CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 38(2)(a), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(1)(a) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the earlier Act, 1986, particularly focusing on the timelines for filing written statements. It emphasized that the District Commission lacks jurisdiction to accept written statements beyond the stipulated 45 days, as established in the Supreme Court's ruling in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Limited. The court concluded that the acceptance of a written statement after this period constituted an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a complaint against Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. after their insurance claim was repudiated following the death of the insured. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) initially closed the opportunity for the respondents to file a written statement but later allowed a recall application to accept the written statement without giving the petitioners a chance to object. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing it violated the Consumer Protection Act's provisions regarding timelines for filing written statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DCDRC acted beyond its jurisdiction by accepting the written statement after the 45-day period without a valid extension request. It highlighted that the acceptance of the written statement was a gross abuse of jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to contest the recall application.
Issues: Whether the DCDRC had the jurisdiction to accept a written statement filed after the statutory period of 45 days as prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, and whether the petitioners were denied natural justice in the process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DCDRC's acceptance of the written statement after the statutory period constituted an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction. It reiterated that the timelines set forth in the Consumer Protection Act are mandatory and must be adhered to, as established by the Supreme Court in previous rulings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dated 21.10.2022 and 15.10.2022 were quashed. The DCDRC was directed to hear the matter without considering the written statement filed by the respondents, while allowing them to participate in further proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manish Kumar
1. Heard Shri Skand Bajpai, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Abhishek Bhatnagar, learned counsel for respondent as well as learned State Counsel and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as UPSCDRC) in RP/73/2022 titled as Mrs. Anupama Dwivedi and others versus Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd, through Managing Director and CEO, Mumbai and others; impugned order dated 15.10.2022 passed by learned District Court Disputes Consumer Redressal Commision (hereinafter referred as DCDRC) in CC/81/22 titled as Mrs. Anupama Dwivedi and others versus Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd Through ManagingDirector and CEO and others; and with a further prayer to pass an order declaring the Consumer Protection Procedure Regulations, 2020 as mandatory and binding on the Consumer Commission and direct strict observance of all the regulations contained therein and pass an order fixing a short date for evidence of the complainant before the learned DCDRC with a direction to dispose the matter in a time bound manner on priority basis and in line with Regulation 26 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations 2020.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that a complaint was filed by the petitioners before the DCDRC, against the respondents when the respondents have repudiated the insurance claim of the petitioners after the demise of husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who was insured with the respondent company. In the said complaint case, the notice was issued on 01.04.2022 and the notice was served upon respondent no. 4 on 02.04.2022 and the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 05.04.2022. The first date was fixed thereafter on 13.05.2022, on that date, a counsel had put in appearance on behalf of respondents and filed Vakalatnama and the case was next fixed for 23.06.2022.
On the date fixed i.e. 23.06.2022, no one had either put in appearance or filed written statement on behalf of respondents and the court had passed an order closing the opportunity of filing of the written statement and fixed the case on 15.10.2022.
4. It is further submitted that on 15.10.2022, a recall application was preferred by the counsel along with the copy of the written statement which was allowed on the very same date by recalling the order dated 23.06.2022, the order by which the opportunity of filing the written statement was closed and accepted the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. The said order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to file an objection against the recall application though the counsel was present and apprised the court that after the lapse of 45 days, as per Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, written statement could be accepted and that there was no illegality in the order dated 23.06.2022.
5. It is further contended that against the order dated 15.10.2022, a revision under Section 47(1)(b) was preferred by the petitioners before the Commission taking all the pleas by placing reliance upon Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1986 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court particularly on the point that after 45 days' period, the written submission could not be accepted.
6. The said revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by judgment and order dated 20.10.2022 by the State Commission without recording any finding on the legal plea raised by the petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the DCDRC and dismissed the revision only on the point that the recall application was allowed after imposing cost, hence no interference is called for.
7. It is further submitted that as per Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred as Act, 2019), 30 days' period is provided or such extend
The court affirmed that the time limit for filing written statements under the Consumer Protection Act is inflexible and cannot be extended beyond the stipulated period, emphasizing the necessity for....
(1) Against order passed by National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, writ petition before concerned High Court under Article 227 of Constitution....
Mandatory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act for filing responses are rigid, and courts cannot extend them beyond stipulated periods.
Written Statement – Limitation – Application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before Consumer Fora prior to 04.03.2020, must be decided on merits and ought not to be summarily dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
