Accepting Evidence Without Filing Written Statement Is Same As Allowing A Late Reply: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant took an insurance policy from Kotak Mahindra and approached the District Forum due to a dispute. After admitting the complaint, the complainant argued that the District Forum issued notices to Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance (the insurer), which were served beyond the statutory period of 45 days. As a result, the District Forum did not record the insurer's written statement but set the case for both parties to produce evidence. Aggrieved by this decision, the complainant appealed to the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the District Forum's order regarding the submission of evidence by both parties. It directed the District Forum to proceed with the case by not admitting evidence after the expiry of 45 days of filing period. Consequently, the insurer brought the matter before the National Commission through a Revision Petition.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The insurer argued against the State Commission's order, stating that the local counsel had received the written version and filed it shortly after. However, he could not attend the proceedings due to being required in another court. Acting in good faith, the local counsel's absence resulted in the right to reply being closed. The notarized reply was sent to the advocate for filing and was received within 40 days of receiving the summons. It was argued that according to a Supreme Court judgment in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Mampee Timbers and Hardware Pvt. Ltd & Anr., consumer forums can accept replies beyond 45 days under certain circumstances. The counsel for the insurer argued that the District Forum's order was passed after a Supreme Court judgment stating that Consumer Forums cannot condone delays beyond 45 days. However, the State Commission's order was passed after another Supreme Court order in the Reliance General Insurance case, which should have allowed for the delay in filing the written statement to be condoned.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission reviewed the State Commission's order, the District Forum's order, and the relevant records and contentions. The State Commission, in response to the complainant's petition, set aside the District Forum's decision, allowing the insurer to file evidence after failing to submit a written statement within the 45-day statutory period. The District Forum had previously refused to accept the insurer's reply as it was filed late but then scheduled the case for both parties to produce evidence. The State Commission determined that without the written statement, the insurer should not be allowed to submit evidence, as this would indirectly allow their late reply to be considered. The State Commission based its decision on the Supreme Court ruling in Dr. J J Merchant and Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, concluding that cases should not be fixed for producing evidence if the opposite party's reply was not submitted within the prescribed 45-day period. The commission agreed with this interpretation, stating that accepting evidence without a timely written reply is effectively the same as allowing a late reply. The District Forum's decision to reject the written version was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., which did not permit consumer forums to condone delays beyond 45 days. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardware Pvt. Ltd. came after the District Forum's order and, thus, did not apply retroactively. The State Commission was only reviewing the legality of the District Forum's order and not reconsidering the original complaint based on the later Supreme Court ruling. Ultimately, the insurer is not entitled to the benefit of the later Supreme Court judgment. The issue of condoning delays beyond 45 days for filing a written version is governed by the ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., which strictly prohibits extending the filing period beyond 45 days.

Therefore, the commission upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the Revision Petition.

Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Vs. Om Prakash Dubey

Case Number: R.P. No. 2140/2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order