AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 29.11.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 676 of 2015.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appears for the appellant (the ‘opposite party no. 2’ before the State Commission).
Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 4 (the ‘opposite party no. 1’ before the State Commission).
No one appears for the respondents no. 1 to no. 3 (the ‘complainants’ before the State Commission’).
We have heard the learned counsel present and have perused the record.
The appeal impugns an interlocutory order of the State Commission vide which it has forfeited the right of the opposite party no. 2 to file its written version. The said Order is being reproduced below for reference:
29.11.2019
Present: Mr. Ajit Rajput, Counsel for the Complainant.
Mr. Mayan Kumar Counsel for OP No. 1.
None for OP No. 2.
C-676/2015
No one has appeared on behalf of OP NO. 2 despite Passover. OP No. 2 has filed written statement with a delay of 90 days. Application for condonation of delay is listed for disposal today. However, no one has appeared on behalf of OP No. 2. Even on the previous date also no one has appeared for OP No. 2.
In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, written statement of OP No. 2 is also taken of from the record.
Complainant to file rejoinder to the written statement of OP No. 1 and evidence by way of affidavit within 08 weeks supplying advance copy to OPs.
Re-list on 20.04.2020.
(Salma Noor)
Member
Later on at 3.30 PM: Mr. Navranjan Kumar, Advocate appeared for OP No. 2. He has been apprised of the aforesaid Order.
At the relevant time i.e. on 29.11.2019 when the State Commission passed its Order written version beyond the statutory period of 30 days and the extended period of 15 days thence i.e. beyond total 45 days stipulated under Section 13(1)(a) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the old Act, then in force) could be permitted to be filed subject to “suitable terms, including the payment of costs” in accordance with the judgment dated 10.02.2017 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardware Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Later on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., taking a stricter view on the subject, was delivered on 04.03.2020 but the same was made prospective in operation by the Hon’ble Court (“This Judgment to operate prospectively.”).
Thus the instant matter has to be considered in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment given in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardware Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. whereby written version could be permitted to be filed subject to suitable terms.
Without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case, but considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances in their totality, and also keeping in perspective the first principles of natural justice, it appears just and appropriate that the written version of the appellant may be taken on record subject to suitable terms.
As such the written version of the appellant shall be taken on record subject to cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the complainant no. 1 (widow of the deceased patient) within 30 days from today.
The impugned Order dated 29.11.2019 of the State Commission stands modified accordingly.
The opposite party no. 2 is sternly advised to conduct his defence properly before the State Commission.
The State Commission is requested to take the written version of the opposite party no. 2 on record if the cost of Rs. 50,000/- is paid to the complainant no. 1 within 30 days from today. It would then give opportunity to the complainants to file their rejoinder thereto, and to proceed further with the adjudication of the case in the normal wont as per the law.
It goes without saying that if the cost imposed is not paid within the stipulated period of 30 days from today, the written version shall not be taken on record for consideration, and the State Commission shall so proceed further with the adjudication of the case.
The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 24.05.2023.
The complainants no. 1 to no. 3 are not present or represented before this Commission today. As such, in the interest of justice, if, for whatever reason, the complainants no. 1 to no. 3 do not appear before the State Commission on 24.05.2023, the State Commission shall issue notice to them and ensure its due service. In such contingency the steps for service of notice shall be taken by the opposite party no. 2.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. The Registry is also requested to forthwith communicate this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
‘Dasti’, in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.