Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 315
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDENT, SRI. AJITH KUMAR D., JUDICIAL MEMBER, SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN, MEMBER
The Managing Director M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Arunkumar S. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/278/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. M. Nizamudeen
For the Respondent: Adv. Sreevaraham N. G. Mahesh
Appellants set ex parte during COVID-19 were entitled to exclusion from limitation period; previous orders overturned.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Ex parte proceedings - The appellants were set ex-parte during COVID-19, unable to represent due to pandemic - Ruling that Supreme Court's exclusion of limitation period must apply to the appellants. - Previous order of the District Commission set aside and complaint directed to be heard afresh. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Limitation - The court clarified that the time during which the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in effect should be excluded in computing limitation, as per the Supreme Court's directions.
Facts of the case:
The Managing Director and the Divisional Manager of Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd appealed against C.C.No.173/2021 after being set ex-parte during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint was allowed based on the evidence submitted by the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The order setting the appellants ex-parte during pandemic cannot stand; hence, it is set aside, affording both parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims in a fresh hearing by the District Commission.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were denied a fair hearing due to ex parte orders issued during the pandemic.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court recognized the unique circumstances of the pandemic and reiterated that the period during which the pandemic restrictions were in place cannot penalize the appellants' right to defend themselves in the complaint proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed, and the case remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ex-parte order issued based on pandemic circumstances. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. pandemic conditions warrant exclusion of limitation periods. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.173/2021 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’).
2. The notice was served on the appellants. However, the appellants/opposite parties did not appear before the District Commission. In the said circumstances, the District Commission allowed the complaint on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A4.
3. Heard. Perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were set ex-parte at the time when Covid – 19 pandemic was at its peak and in the said circumstances, the order passed by the District Commission setting the appellants ex- parte cannot be sustained. It appears from the records that the complaint was filed on 21.04.2021 when Covid -19 pandemic was at its peak. It further appears from the proceedings that the notice was served on the appellants on 09.07.2021, which was also at a time when Covid - 19 pandemic was at its peak. It also appears from the proceedings that the appellants were set ex-parte on 03.01.2022, which was also when the Covid - 19 pandemic was at its peak.
5. It is to be noted that on account of the difficulties due to the wide spread of COVID–19, the Hon’ble Apex Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v., reported in 2022 (1) KHC 240 : 2022 (3) 117 , held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is to be excluded for the computation of limitation. The opposite parties/appellants were set ex-parte by the District Commission on 03.01.2022, when there was wide spread of COVID-19 pandemic. The threat of COVID–19 pandemic was not over on 25.02.2022 as well. The above dates would show that the complaint was filed and disposed of at the time when Covid-19 pandemic was at its peak. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted exclusion for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation in all cases, the appellants had every right to get the benefit of exclusion granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the District Commission set the appellants ex-parte when Covid-19 pandemic was at its peak. In the said circumstances, the order passed by the District Commission setting the appellants ex-
parte cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, orders dated 03.01.2022 and 25.02.2022 in C.C.No.173/2021 stand set aside and the District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint afresh, in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to substantiate their contentions. Since the complaint was already disposed of by the District Commission when the Covid-19 pandemic was at its peak, the appellants could not file written version when the threat of Covid-19 pandemic was over. In the said circumstances, the appellants shall have the liberty to file written version before the District Commission within the statutory period, which will be computed from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to state that the District Commission shall issue notice to the parties before proceeding with the complaint.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgement.
