IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 21ST BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16358 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

ASWIN MUKUND, S/O.MUKUNDANKUTTY, "ARCHANA", VNRA-073, VIDYA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA.P.O., ERNAKULAM – 682020.

BY ADVS.G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR GENTLE C.D.

BIJOY SAM GEORGE RESPONDENTS:

1 M/S.KOTAK LIFE, (A UNIT OF KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.)

2ND FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA, RAJAJI ROAD, COCHIN - 682035, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

2 M/S. FINCARE BANK, THOMASPETTA TOWER, NEAR RENAI MEDICITY, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 682024, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

3 CUSTOMER CARE, KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTAK TOWERS, 7TH FLOOR, ZONE-IV, BUILDING NO.21 INFINITY PARK, OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY GEORGEON, MULUND LINK ROAD, MALAD EAST, MUMBAI – 400097.

BY ADVS.ALEX ABRAHAM SANEESH KUMAR K V.B.SANTHINI(K/700/2006)

ATHIRA LEKSHMI J.(K/001842/2022)

C.C.ABRAHAM(K/000110/1989)

NIKHIL RAJ(K/002846/2022)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Ext.P13 order of the Permanent Lok Adalat at Ernakulam (‘Lok Adalat’ for short), dismissing his application filed under Section 22(c)(1), read with Section 22A(b)(VI) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘Act’, for short), for want of prosecution.

2. Sri.G.Hariharan – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it is only on account of an omission to note the posting of the case that his client was not present on the day when Ext.P13 was issued; and therefore, prayed that it be set aside and the learned Lok Adalat be directed to reconsider his case on its merits.

3. In response, Sri.Alex Abraham for respondent No.1 and Sri.Saneesh Kumar K. for respondent No.2, asserted that Ext.P13 is irreproachable, because the petitioner was not present several times when the matter was listed before the Lok Adalt. They, however, left it to this Court to issue appropriate orders.

4. When I consider the afore rival submissions, it is evident that Ext.P13 was issued solely because the petitioner did not appear on the day it was issued. Normally, it would be unfair to deny relief to the petitioner solely on technical reasons like non-appearance; and am, therefore, of the firm view that he must be given a limited latitude.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P13; with a consequential direction to the Lok Adalat to take up the complaint of the petitioner and dispose of the same on its merits, provided he appears before it on the next posting date.

For the afore purpose, I direct the parties to appear before the Lok Adalat at 11 a.m. on

28.09.2023.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16358/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF THE 1ST INSTALLMENT OF RS.1,14,999/- ON 28.08.2019 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BENEFIT ILLUSTRATION OF THE KOTAK SMART LIFE PLAN WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE PART OF THE POLICY DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TEXT OF THE E-MAIL MESSAGE DATED 06.01.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 11.01.2021 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 22.01.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE CUSTOMER CARE WING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 13.02.2021 SENT BY THE CLIENT SERVICE DESK OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 13.02.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE CLIENT SERVICE DESK OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 24.02.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSA