High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-31Writ petition dismissed

M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muraleedharan Vailappally Illam and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 23801 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-01-31
Court Decision / Holding: No relief; writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondents

V.N. Muraleedharan Vailappally Illam, Vennala P.O., Cochin-682 028
ICICI Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, EMGEE Square Building, Opposite Padma Theatre, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682 035
ICICI Bank Ltd. (Deleted) Corporate Office, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051
President Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Latheesh Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• N.N. Girija
• Sri Lal K. Joseph
• Sri V.S. Shiraz Bava
• Sri M.B. Soori

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition, filed by M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in CC No. 725/2014. The petitioner contends that the Forum did not rule on its petition to accept Exhibit P-2 (the petitioner’s version) and did not permit cross-examination or effective participation in the proceedings, thereby prejudicing its defense. The petitioner, as the third respondent in CC 725/2014, had filed a version on 17.07.2015 and sought acceptance of that version; the Forum proceeded and concluded the complaint without granting the requested relief. The petitioner relies on the decision in Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Manisha Bhargava and others (2021(2) KHC 184) to argue for acceptance of the version. The Court situates the issue within the broader constitutional jurisprudence on the power of consumer fora to condone delays and accept written statements beyond the statutory period (45 days) under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757 and J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635, the Court reiterates that fora lack such power, with the Constitution Bench decision applying prospectively. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is discussed to contextualize condonation orders. The Court ultimately dismisses the petition, holding no relief is warranted and upholding the existing statutory framework. The Appendix lists Exts. P1–P3.

Provisions of Law Cited

Consumer Protection Act, Section 13 (time limit for filing written statements; 45 days)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Consumer fora have no power or jurisdiction to accept written statements beyond the statutory period (45 days).
Constitution Bench decisions have prospective applicability.
J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635: consumer fora cannot extend time for filing a reply beyond the prescribed period.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ): condonation of delay in appropriate cases was discussed as background; Constitution Bench ruling applies prospectively.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner, third respondent in CC No. 725/2014, asserts that the Forum did not decide its petition to accept Exhibit P-2 and did not permit cross-examination, thereby hindering its ability to present its defence. It seeks a mandamus directing the Forum to accept P-2, permit cross-examination of the 1st respondent and other witnesses, and allow participation in the proceedings. It relies on Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2021(2) KHC 184) to support acceptance of its version and cross-examination rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no authority to accept written statements beyond the 45-day statutory period under Section 13 of the Act. They rely on established constitutional bench jurisprudence (including J.J. Merchant and New India Assurance) to argue that no such extension is permissible, and that condonation of delay is not available except under the narrowly defined, prospective framework. They oppose granting the relief sought and urge dismissal of the petition.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Daddy's Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Ms) and others v. Manisha Bhargava and others	2021(2) KHC 184	Distinguished	The court cites Daddy's Builders as not supporting the petitioner’s position; the Constitution Bench ruling aligns with the view that consumer fora lack power to accept written statements beyond 45 days.
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.	(2020) 5 SCC 757	Positive	Constitution Bench decision establishing no power to condone beyond 45 days; relied upon as binding authority.
J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi	(2002) 6 SCC 635	Positive	Precedent that consumer fora cannot extend time for filing a reply beyond the prescribed period.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra )	Not provided	Mentioned Only	Discussed in context of condonation of delay; not treated as having retroactive effect; used as background authority.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muraleedharan Vailappally Illam and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 11TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 23801 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER/S:** M/S.I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD 4TH FLOOR, INTERFACE 11, OFFICE NOS.401 AND 402, NEW LINK ROAD, MALAD WEST, MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO., KANNANKERY ESTATE, 3RD FLOOR, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-682 031. BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - 1 V.N.MURALEEDHARAN VAILAPPALLY ILLAM, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN-682 028. - 2 ICICI BANK LTD. 2ND FLOOR, EMGEE SQUARE BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO PADMA THEATRE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 035. - 3 ICICI BANK LTD.*(DELETED) CORPORATE OFFICE, ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051. *(R3 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 12-01-2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WP(C)23801/2016) 4 PRESIDENT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SMT.N.N.GIRIJA SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.M.B.SOORI WPC.No. 23801 of 2016 2 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No. 23801 of 2016 3 # **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 23801 of 2016** **---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of January, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with following prayers. _“(i) Call for the entire records relating to Exts.P1 to P3 in C.C No. 725/2014 from the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam,_ _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions or order directing the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam to accept Exhibit P-2 version of the petitioner in C.C No 725/2014 and further direct the CDRF, Ernakulam to permit the petitioner to participate in the proceedings in C.C. No. 725/2014 effectively by cross examining the 1[st] respondent, other witnesses examined by the respondents and adduce evidence by the petitioner._ _(iii) Such other relief that this Honorable court may deem fit to render justice to the Petitioner.”_ 2. The petitioner is the 3[rd] respondent in C.C.No.725 of 2014 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner they filed their version WPC.No. 23801 of 2016 4 before the forum on 17.07.2015 with a petition to accept the version. It is the case of the petitioner that the forum did not pass any orders on the petition to accept the version and continued the proceedings upto 30.06.2016, the date on which the complaint was examined as PW1. The forum rejected the petition to accept the version of the petitioner and is not permitting the petitioner to adduce defence evidence and to effectively participate in the proceedings before the forum. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The point raised by the petitioner is covered against petition in _**Daddy's Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Ms) and others v. Manisha Bhargava and others [2021(2) KHC 184]**_ . The Apex Court relies the constitution bench of the earlier decision and after discussing the matter in detail, said that the consumer forum has no power or jurisdiction to accept written statement beyond the statutory period that is 45 days. WPC.No. 23801 of 2016 5 ## 5. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: _“4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and so far as the question whether the date on which the State Commission passed the order, then on that date, whether the State Commission has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days for filing the written statement under Section 13 of the Act is concerned, as such, the said issue whether the State Commission has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days is now not resintegra in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that as in paragraph 63 it is observed that the said judgment shall be applicable prospectively and therefore the said decision shall not be applicable to the complaint which was filed prior to the said judgment and/or the said decision shall not be applicable to the application for condonation of delay filed before the said decision._ _However, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that as per the decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 635, which was a three Judge Bench decision, consumer fora has no power to extend the time for filing a reply/written statement beyond the period prescribed under the Act. However, thereafter, despite the above three Judge Bench decision, a contrary view was taken by a two Judge Bench and therefore the matter was referred to the five Judge Bench and the Constitution Bench has reiterated the view taken in the case of J.J.Merchant (supra) and has again reiterated_ WPC.No. 23801 of 2016 6 _that the consumer fora has no power and/or jurisdiction to accept the written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act, i.e., 45 days in all. However, it was found that in view of the order passed by this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) dated 10.02.2017, pending the decision of the larger Bench, in some of the cases, the State Commission might have condoned the delay in filing the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days and all those orders condoning the delay and accepting the written statements shall not be affected, this Court observed in paragraph 63 that the decision of the Constitution Bench shall be applicable prospectively. We say so because one of us was a party to the said decision of the Constitution Bench._ _5. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the order passed by this Court dated 10.02.2017 in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same has been dealt with in detail by the National Commission by the impugned order while deciding the first appeal. As rightly observed by the National Commission, there was no mandate that in all the cases where the written statement was submitted beyond the stipulated period of 45 days, the delay must be condoned and the written statement must be taken on record. In order dated 10.02.2017, it is specifically mentioned that it will be open to the concerned fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs and to proceed with the matter. Therefore, ultimately, it was left to the concerned fora to accept the written statement beyond the stipulated period of 45 days in an appropriate case. As observed by the National Commission that despite sufficient time granted the written statement was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the_ WPC.No. 23801 of 2016 7 _National Commission has considered the aspect of condonation of delay on merits also. In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant (supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned National Commission._ In the light of the above judgment, no relief can granted in this case. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** Dxy WPC.No. 23801 of 2016 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23801/2016** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.725/2014. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO ACCEPT VERSION.