Bombay High Court
Anita Chandrakant Patil vs Circle Officer, Lic Of India, ... on 9 August, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/7718/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7718 OF 2015
Anita Chandrakant Patil
Age 63 Years, Occ. Household
R/o Deshpande Galli, Taluka
and District Latur. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Circle Officer,
LIC of India,
Circle Office "Jeevan Prakash"
Adalat Road, Aurangabad.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Branch 945,
Ambajogai Road, Latur. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Ku. Bhale Kavita S.
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Rane Girish S.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 09, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the
petition is taken up for final disposal.
WP/7718/2015
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2014,
passed by the State Commission by which the First Appeal No.
359 of 2014 has been dismissed in default. It is specifically stated
by the petitioner that even before issuing notices to the
respondents in the First Appeal, the same has been dismissed in
default as none was present for the appellant on 16.7.2014,
12.8.2014 and 5.9.2014.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
following orders passed by the various Single Judge Benches of
this Court:-
(a) The order dated 16.1.2014 (Coram: S.V.
Gangapurwala, J) in the matter of Hemlata w/o Kantilal
Thole versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd (Writ
Petition No.8401/2013).
(b) The order dated 20.2.2014 (Coram:
S.V.Gangapurwala, J) in the matter of Kapurchand
Kotecha Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd & another
versus Mangilal s/o Bhikchand Jain (Writ Petition
No.531/2014).
(c) Arun s/o Sudamrao Modale versus
Sangmeshwar Tractor authorized Dealer (2014(4)
Mh.L.J. 757).
WP/7718/2015
(d) The order dated 27.7.2015 (Coram: Sunil P.
Deshmukh, J) in the matter of Shivaji S/o Rangnath
Khilari versus The Manager, Wasan Automobiles &
another (Writ Petition No.9793/2014).
(e) The order dated 3.2.2016 (Coram: V.K. Jadhav, J)
in the matter of The Branch Manager, State Bank of
India versus Dharmaraj Chindha Patil (Writ Petition
No.2811 of 2015).
(f) The order dated 22.3.2016 passed by this Court in
the matter of Miss. Radhika D/o Rajesh Mandhani
versus Dr. Dilip Patwardhan & another (Writ Petition
No.3985/2012).
6. The learned counsel Shri Rane for the Insurance Company
has relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in the matter of Bajirao s/o Dagduji Sirsat versus Sanjay
Prakashchand Kothari & others (2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 278)
.
7. Shri Rane has strenuously opposed this petition on two
grounds. Firstly, the ordinary limitation period for filing a
Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission is 90 days. This petition is filed after 180
days. Secondly, the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of
WP/7718/2015
Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [(2012) 8 SCC 524], has
concluded that the High Court should not entertain a Writ
Petition against the judgment of the State Commission. He also
relies upon the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this
Court in the matter of Bajirao (supra) to contend that a Writ
Petition would not be maintainable.
8. It is obvious that the First Appeal filed by the petitioner
has been dismissed in default at the pre-notice stage. The
respondents herein had no reason to appear before the State
Commission as the notices were yet to be issued.
9. It appears from the judgment in the case of Cicily (supra)
that the judgment of the National Commission on merits, was
challenged directly before the Kerala High Court, which was
entertained. The Honourable Apex Court has concluded that this
should not be permitted since Section 27A of the Consumer
Protection Act will enable the litigant to file an appeal before the
Apex Court for challenging the judgment of the National
Commission.
10. In Bajirao (supra), the learned Division Bench relied upon
the judgment in Cicily (supra). The case before the Division
WP/7718/2015
Bench was not of an order of 'dismissed in default' under
challenge.
11. This Court has been consistently entertaining Writ
Petitions for setting aside the 'dismissed in default' order passed
by the State Commission as is evident from the judgments /
orders cited above.
12. In so far as sufficiency of reasons for setting aside the
dismissed in default order is concerned, the delay caused cannot
be said to be said to be deliberate or inordinate. The petitioner
is a widow, whose husband has passed away and is litigating for
certain benefits under the insurance policy held with the LIC. It
would be cumbersome and would cause her grave hardships and
manifest inconvenience to hold that even for setting aside a
dismissed in default order, the petitioner widow should be
compelled to approach the National Commission at New Delhi.
13. Considering the above aspects, this petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 5.9.2013 is set aside with the
following directions:-
(A) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of
WP/7718/2015
Rs.5,000/- before the State Commission, Aurangabad
on 11.9.2017.
(B) The LIC of India will be at liberty to withdraw
the said amount without conditions.
(C) Learned Advocates for the respective sides
request for a date for appearance before the State
Commission. The request is accepted and by the
consent of the parties, they shall appear before the
State Commission through their representatives on
11.9.2017. Formal notices need not be issued by the
State Commission.
(D) It is expected that the petitioner would take
care of avoiding adjournments in the matter.
14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
