AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 17.11.2014 passed by State Commission in Misc. Case No. 451 of 2014 in Complaint No. CC/106/2009- National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors .; by which application for setting aside exparte order was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before State Commission against opposite party/petitioner for compensation of Rs. 71,68,062/-. Opposite party appeared on 16.11.2009 and case was adjourned for filing written statement to 30.12.2009. On 30.12.2009 again, case was adjourned for filing written statement to 2.3.2010. By order dated 16.12.2013, last opportunity was granted to opposite party to file written statement and case was adjourned to 3.1.2014. On 3.1.2014 again, counsel for opposite party sought adjournment for filing written statement but as last opportunity was granted on last date, opposite party was proceeded exparte and matter was fixed for exparte hearing on 21.2.2014. It appears that later on, opposite party filed application for setting aside exparte order and Learned State Commission vide order dated 17.10.2014 set aside exparte order dated 3.1.2014 and also accepted written statement which was filed on 3.1.2014 and matter was adjourned to 31.10.2014 for hearing on other Miscellaneous cases. In the same order, before putting signatures, later on, it was observed that counsel for complainant submitted that conducting counsel was held up in High Court in another matter and prayed for adjournment and case was adjourned to 31.10.2014 for orders. It appears that later on, by impugned order dated 17.11.2014, application for setting aside exparte order dated 3.1.2014 was dismissed against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that Learned State Commission had no power to recall the order dated 17.10.2014, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that as order dated 17.10.2014, setting aside exparte was not signed by Members of the Bench, there is no question of recalling order dated 17.10.2014 and order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law. It was, further, submitted that petitioner has not come with clean hands, hence, revision petition be dismissed.
Copies of order sheets filed by the respondent reveal that after 30.12.2009, the case was to be listed on 2.3.2010 but it appears that case was taken up on 30.10.2013 and no order sheets of intervening 3 ? years have been placed on record. On 30.10.2013 and 4.11.2013, Bench did not function and on 16.12.2013 last opportunity was granted to opposite party to file written statement and case was adjourned to 3.1.2014. On 3.1.2014, counsel for opposite party sought time for filing written statement but as last opportunity was granted to file written statement on last date, the State Commission passed order for proceeding exparte against opposite party and matter was adjourned for exparte hearing to 21.2.2014.
When Counsel for opposite party appeared on 3.1.2014 before State Commission and sought adjournment for filing written statement, Learned State Commission could have at the most closed right to file written statement but had no occasion to proceed exparte against the opposite party and matter should have been adjourned for complainant''s evidence instead of exparte hearing. Order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Learned State Commission runs as under:- "This relates to a petition for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.01.2014 passed by this Commission.
Learned Counsel for Ops submits that on that date, the associates of conducting counsel while coming to file written version, met with an accident & as such written version could not be filed on that date & the Ops were set ex-parte. He further submits that on that date he also filed written version.
Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the ex-parte order dated 03.01.2014 is set aside & written version filed by Ops is accepted.
Let it be listed on 31.10.2014 for hearing on other misc. cases. LATER
Before putting signature on the orders, learned counsel for complainant submits that the conducting counsel is held up in the High Court in another matter & prays to adjourn the matter to some other date.
Let it be listed on 31.10.2014 for orders.
Sd/- Justice R.N. Biswal, President
Sd/- S. Mohanty, Member
Sd/- G.P. Sahoo, Member"
Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that written statement was filed by opposite party on 3.1.2014 itself after adjournment on 3.1.2014, which was accepted by order dated 17.10.2014 while setting aside exparte order dated 3.1.2014. Thus, it becomes clear that Learned State Commission wrongly passed order proceeding exparte against opposite party on 3.1.2014 and by order dated 17.10.2014 accepted written statement which was filed on 3.1.2014. It appears that after adjourning the matter to 31.10.2014 for hearing on other misc. cases and before putting signatures, Learned Counsel for complainant apprised that conducting counsel is held up in High Court and prayed to adjourn the matter to some other date and was adjourned to same date i.e. 31.10.2014 to which it was adjourned before this submission.
Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that before putting signatures, Learned State Commission had every right to recall its order and in support of his contention he has placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Surendra Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1954) Supreme Court Reports 330 ; in which it was observed that after judgment has been delivered, provision is made for review. It was, further, observed that it can be freely altered or amended or even changed completely without further formality except notice to the parties provided it has not been signed.
Admittedly, State Commission has no power to review its order in the light of judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 541. As far alteration or amendment of the order before it is signed is concerned, order dated 17.10.2014 depicts that it has been signed after incorporating submission of counsel for complainant for adjourning the matter to some other date and matter was adjourned to 31.10.2014 for hearing on other misc. cases and in such circumstances, it can be presumed that after putting word "Later " it was adjourned to the same date for hearing on other misc. cases and not for hearing on the point whether exparte should be set aside and written statement should be taken on record. Earlier order setting aside exparte could have been recalled only on 17.10.2014 before signing but as no such order was passed, order dated 17.10.2014 attained finality which was not challenged by complainant and Learned State Commission vide order dated 17.11.2014 had no power to recall order dated 17.10.2014. Learned Counsel for respondent also placed reliance on AIR 1992 Allahabad 45- Vijai Kumar Kohli and Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (Jeevan Vikas); in which also it was observed that after hearing both the parties, earlier view can be changed by the Court. As State Commission had no power to review its order dated 17.10.2014, the impugned order is liable to set aside.
Learned Counsel for respondent also placed reliance on ( 2010) 14 SCC 38- Ramjas Foundation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors; in which it was observed that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands, is not entitled to be heard on merits.
Learned Counsel for opposite party has drawn my attention towards para 3 (i) and 3 (ii) of the revision petition. I do not find any wrong statement in aforesaid paras and there is neither any mis-statement nor any suppression of facts in these two paras and in such circumstances, aforesaid judgment has no bearing on the case in hand.
Learned Counsel for respondent also placed reliance on (2002) 6 SCC 635 - Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi ; in which it was observed that time for filing written statement is required to be strictly adhered to. This point is not for consideration before me in this revision petition and when Learned State Commission granted time for filing written statement, complainant should have challenged that order which has not been done.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that as Learned State Commission had no power to review its earlier order, the impugned order dated 17.11.2014 is liable to set aside. Written statement had already been filed by opposite party on 3.1.2014 which had already been taken on record by order dated 17.10.2014.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 17.11.2014 passed by Learned State Commission in Misc. Case No. 451 of 2014 in Complaint No. CC/106/2009- National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors .; is set aside and Learned State Commission is directed to proceed in accordance with law treating written statement to be on record.
Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on the date already fixed.