STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

Date of Institution: 08.06.2023

Reserved on : 20.09.2023
Date of Decision : 19.10.2023

1. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, D-4, 4th

Floor, City Centre, Jalandhar, through its Authorized
Representative.
2. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited,
Corporate Office Vishranthi Mela Ram Towers No.2/319, Rajiv
Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai registered office
21, Patullos Road, Chennai, through its Authorized
Representative.

……..Petitioners/Opposite Parties
Versus
V.K. Valves Private Limited, C-106, Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar,
through its Director.

…..Respondent/Complainant

Revision Petition under Section 47 (1)(b)

of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against
the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Jalandhar in C.C. No.386 of
2022.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President

Present:-
For the petitioners : Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Arshit Goel, Advocate

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported

in the Digest? Yes/No
 2
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The petitioners/opposite parties i.e. Royal Sundaram GIC

Limited & another, through their authorized representative have filed

the present Revision Petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer

Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) for setting aside the order

dated 06.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short the ‘District

Commission’), whereby the petitioners/OPs Company were

proceeded exparte.

2. There was delay of 95 days in filing of Revision Petition.

M.A. No.838 of 2023 was filed for condonation of delay alongwith

supported by an affidavit. Said delay was condoned vide order dated

21.07.2023 but subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly the said

M.A. was disposed off. The appellants had paid the amount of cost of

Rs.5000/- to the respondent/complainant.

M.A. No.1256 of 2023

3. This M.A. has been filed for extension of time to deposit

the remaining amount of cost of Rs.5000/- and has also attached the

Demand Draft bearing No.242653 dated 11.09.2023 in favour of the

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab.

4. The respondent/complainant had filed reply to the said

application and had prayed for dismissal of Revision Petition with

cost.
 3
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

5. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for both

the parties.

6. In the interest of justice and the reasons as recorded in

the application, the Registry is directed to deposit the amount of

Rs.5000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

Accordingly, the M.A. is allowed and the delay of 95 days in filing the

revision petition is condoned.

Main case

7. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for

disposal of the present Revision Petition are that the

respondent/complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the

District Commission praying for directions to the OPs to settle the

insurance claim and further to pay Rs.3,00,000/- on account of

causing mental torture, harassment, physical discomfort and agony

and financial loss and also ‘deficiency of service’ and ‘unfair trade

practice’ on the part of OPs. The complainant had also prayed for

Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

8. Notice was issued to the OPs for 06.12.2022 vide order

dated 28.10.2022. The case came up for hearing on 06.12.2022. The

following order was passed which is reproduced as under :

“06.12.2022
Present : Sh. Puneet Sareen, Adv. counsel for Complainant.
None for counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
As per Office report of Ahlmad, notice sent to OPs No.1 & 2 by
Regd. Post on 1.11.2022 and Regd. Cover not received back
 4
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

so far. Notice to OP No.1 served to Pardeep on 24.11.2022, but

today none has appeared on behalf of OP No.1 inspite of
service, so OP No.1 is proceeded against exparte.
As per Online report of OP No.2 that “Item Delivery Confirmed
on 9.11.2022, but till today none has appeared on behalf of OP
No.2 inspite of service, so OP No.2 is also proceeded against
exparte. Case is adjourned to 12.1.2023 for exparte arguments.
The Complainant is directed to file written arguments prior to
date.”
Said order dated 06.12.2022 is under challenge in the present

Revision Petition.

9. Mr. Tushar Arora Advocate, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners/OPs has submitted that the complainant had filed

First Complaint before the District Commission wherein the OPs had

also filed their written version alongwith the evidence but at the stage

of arguments, the complainant had withdrawn the complaint to

remove certain defects. The District Commission had granted him

liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action.

Thereafter, the complainant had filed Second Complaint bearing

No.386 of 2022 wherein the Appellants were proceeded exparte.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the summons were

received at the Branch location but no legal person was available and

the summons could not be dispatched to the concerned person well

in time. Consequently, the appellants could not engage/appoint

Advocates to appear before the District Commission. Non-

appearance of the OPs before the District Commission was not

intentional. Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellants

were having a good case on merits. Learned counsel has further

submitted that the appellants be allowed to file written version

 5
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

alongwith entire evidence by setting aside the exparte order passed

by the District Commission.

10. Mr. Arshit Goel, Advocate, learned counsel for the

respondent/complainant has submitted that the petitioners were

proceeded exparte due to their non-appearance on the date fixed

before the District Commission whereas the summons were duly

served and it was accepted by the petitioners as well. Said notice

sent to the OPs. OP No.1 was served through one Pardeep on

24.11.2022 but still none had appeared on behalf of OP No.1.

Learned counsel has further submitted that as per online report of OP

No.2 ‘item delivery was confirmed on 09.11.2022’ but still none had

appeared on behalf of OP No.2 inspite of service and OP No.2 was

rightly proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, the case was

adjourned to 12.01.2023 for exparte arguments. The factum of

service of summons had been admitted by the petitioners also as is

clear from paragraph No.5 (h) of the revision petition. Learned

counsel has further submitted that after proceeding exparte, the

petitioners through their counsel filed power of attorney alongwith the

application before the District Commission for allowing them to join

the proceedings. On 12.01.2023, the petitioners were allowed to join

the proceedings at the stage of arguments with the condition that the

petitioners were not having any right to file the written statement and

to lead evidence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the

petitioners had neither placed on record copy of application before

this Commission by which they sought/requested to join the

 6
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

proceedings. Moreover, they have not challenged the order dated

12.01.2023, vide which the District Commission had allowed the

petitioners to argue the case only. Rather they were not allowed to

file the written statement and to lead evidence. Learned counsel has

further submitted that the District Commission had exercised the

jurisdiction which was vested in it by the Law. In the revision petition

nothing has been pointed out as to what was the illegality and

irregularity committed by the District Commission while passing the

order. Once the report of service of summons to the petitioners had

been accepted which had also admitted by them even in the revision

petition then the question of challenging the same was not required.

Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India of case “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” 2020 AIR (Supreme

Court) 1267 in support of oral arguments wherein it was held that the

District Commission had no power to extend the time for filing the

response to the complaint beyond the period of 30+15 days as

provided under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act. The same

view was also taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by

following the earlier five judges bench of case in “Antriksh

Developers and Promoters Private Limited and another Vs.

Kutumb Welfare Society (Regd.) & another”, SLP (Civil) Diary

No.31629 of 2022. Due to said reason the petitioners were not

entitled to be permitted to file written statement beyond the period so

prescribed. Learned counsel has also submitted that the act of the
 7
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

petitioners was an abuse of process of law. At the end, learned

counsel has submitted that the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the

District Commission is justified and it does not suffer from any

illegality and infirmity and present Revision Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

also perused the documents available on the file.

12. Admittedly, the complaint filed by the complainant came

up for hearing before the District Commission on 28.10.2022 wherein

Notice was issued for 06.12.2022. Service was complete qua OP

No.1 on 24.11.2022 and qua OP No.2 on 09.11.2022 but neither OP

No.1 nor OP No.2 appeared on said date nor any counsel

representing them. The case was adjourned to 12.01.2023. Instead of

challenging exparte order, the petitioners had moved an application

before the District Commission to allow the petitioners/OPs No.1 and

2 to join the proceedings there. The application was allowed vide

order dated 12.01.2023 and OPs No.1 and 2 were allowed to raise

only the oral arguments and they were not allowed to file written

statement and to lead evidence. The petitioners did not file the

Revision Petition within time whereas the prescribed time for filing the

written statement to the complaint was 30+15 days.

13. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case titled as of Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (supra) has

held that the period for filing the written reply cannot be extended
 8
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

beyond the statutory period of 45 days (30+15) as prescribed under

Section 13 (2) (a) of the Act of 1986 and Section 38 (2) (a) of the Act

of 2019. The relevant Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, 1986 and Section

38(2) (a) of the Act, 2019 are reproduced as under:-

“Section 13 of the Act, 1986. Procedure on admission of complaint.

– (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it
relates to any goods,

(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaints admitted by it

under Section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure
specified in subsection (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint
relates to any services,

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party

directing him to give his version of the case within a
period of thirty days or such extended period not
exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District
Forum;”

“Section 38 of the Act, 2019. Procedure on admission of complaint

– (1) The District Commission shall, on admission of a complaint, or
in respect of cases referred for mediation on failure of settlement by
mediation, proceed with such complaint.
(2) Where the complaint relates to any goods, the District
Commission shall, -
(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-
one days from the date of its admission to the opposite
party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his
version of the case within a period of thirty days or such
extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be
granted by it;”

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Antriksh

Developers and Promoters Private Limited (Supra) had taken the

similar view. Accordingly, for the reasons as mentioned above and

the law position as held in Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage and

Antriksh Developers and Promoters Private Limited (Supra) by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the contention

raised by the counsel for the petitioners and revision petition filed
 9
Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

by the petitioners is hereby dismissed being devoid of any

merits.

15. However, the petitioners are allowed/entitled to join the

proceedings pending before the District Commission at that stage

and to address oral arguments only in support of their contentions.

16. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications,

if any, are also disposed of.

(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)

PRESIDENT

October 19, 2023

(MM)