Specifying Misrepresentation and Falsification on 2 July 2024 Order of CC-353-2022

Extract from the complaint made to the West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission of a statement published by the bench of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, in the Order of 2 July 2024 of the case CC/353/2022. The concerns over the DCDRC Bench’s integrity have been reported to the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Bar Council of India.

I’d like to bring to everyone’s kind notice that Paragraph 4 in the order is false and misleading. As stated in the order, “Complainant submits that today copy of the evidence which he filed before this Commission is not available before him. He verbally prays for a date for supply of copy of evidence upon the O.P.”.

On 2 July 2024, I as the complainant (plaintiff) never asked for another date of hearing to produce the evidence document copy to hand over to the OP. I clearly refused to comply with the bench’s request as a copy had already been delivered and served to the OP 13 months back (by registered post RW579628005IN). Such a request has been made by the DCDRC bench earlier on the 6 May 2024 hearing as well. This drove me to file the put-up petition with DCDRC concerning the same matter that was sent on 18 June 2024 (by registered post RW780882337IN, delivered on 20 June 2024). As I refused on 2 July 2024, successively I’ve also requested the bench to hear the put-up petition. Ignoring my humble request the bench kept my put-up petition aside and proceeded.

The bench then untied the CC/353/2022 file, took out the evidence documents and annexures, printed it in their office, and gave the copy to the OP HDFC ERGO’s on-floor advocate. It is best to my knowledge this action was carried out in the absence of a formal application from the on-floor advocate of HDFC ERGO requesting a copy of the evidence documents from DCDRC.

from: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>to:confo-pn-wb@nic.in,
wb-sforum@nic.in,
ncdrc@nic.in
cc: dr.ncdrc@gov.in,
confo-rh-wb@gov.in,
Prof Arul Selvan IGNOU MAJMCOL <ksarul@ignou.ac.in>,
“Dr. Amit Kumar Assistant Professor” <amitkumar@ignou.ac.in>,
“Dr. Shikha Rai Associate Professor MAJMC Coordinator IGNOU” <shikharai@ignou.ac.in>,
Ms Padmini Jain Assistant Professor MAJMC Coordinator IGNOU <padminijain@ignou.ac.in>,
gro@hdfcergo.com
date: Jul 9, 2024, 10:18 AM
subject: Re: Complaining to WB SCDRC for disregarding DCDRC bench time, presence, and effort by OP HDFC ERGO
mailed-by: gmail.com

To The Hon’ble President WB SCDRC,

The following complaint is in succession to the complaint made to WB SCDRC by Registry Post RW780882323IN and the successive emails sent by ratulaich@gmail.com to wb-sforum@nic.in on Jun 24, 2024, 11:41 AM and Sat, 22 Jun 2024, 21:06 Subject: Complaining to WB SCDRC for disregarding DCDRC bench time, presence, and effort by OP HDFC ERGO.

DCDRC 2 July 2024 CC/353/2022 Order copy https://photos.app.goo.gl/eQXYdVK4r3AfiaKG9
The next hearing date is 10 July 2024.

1. I’m extremely thankful to CDRC, SCDRC, and DCDRC for preponed hearing dates citing the RTI NCDRC/R/E/24/00040 and complaints of the plaintiff Ratul Aich wrt case CC/354/2022 and CC/353/2022.
2. The following complaint is in succession to the complaint made to WB SCDRC by Registry Post RW780882323IN and the successive emails sent by ratulaich@gmail.com to wb-sforum@nic.in on Jun 24, 2024, 11:41 AM and Sat, 22 Jun 2024, 21:06 Subject: Complaining to WB SCDRC for disregarding DCDRC bench time, presence, and effort by OP HDFC ERGO.
3. I (complainant Ratul Aich) appeared before the bench on 2 July 2024 in DCDRC, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, WB, on the hearing date of the case CC/353/2022.
4. I’d like to bring to everyone’s kind notice that Paragraph 4 in the order is false and misleading. As stated in the order, “Complainant submits that today copy of the evidence which he filed before this Commission is not available before him. He verbally prays for a date for supply of copy of evidence upon the O.P.”. On 2 July 2024, I as the complaint never asked for another date of hearing to produce the evidence document copy to hand over to the OP. I clearly refused to comply with the bench’s request as a copy had already been delivered and served to the OP 13 months back (by registered post RW579628005IN). Such a request has been made by the DCDRC bench earlier on the 6 May 2024 hearing as well. This drove me to file the put-up petition with DCDRC concerning the same matter that was sent on 18 June 2024 (by registered post RW780882337IN, delivered on 20 June 2024). As I refused on 2 July 2024, successively I’ve also requested the bench to hear the put-up petition. Ignoring my humble request the bench kept my put-up petition aside and proceeded.
5. The bench then untied the CC/353/2022 file, took out the evidence documents and annexures, printed it in their office, and gave the copy to the OP HDFC ERGO’s on-floor advocate. It is best to my knowledge this action was carried out in the absence of a formal application from the on-floor advocate of HDFC ERGO requesting a copy of the evidence documents from DCDRC.
6. Therefore, I’d like to bring to WB SCDRC’s kind notice the following observations, concerns, and questions.
7. I believe the significant matter listed in the put-up petition questioning the 6 May 2024 hearing procedure that could impact the overall system of Mandatory Digitization of Legal Documents in a Tech-Savvy Society has been overlooked on the 2 July 2024 hearing.
8. Why should the DCDRC incur the cost of printing a heap of documents to cover up the deficiency between the OP HDFC ERGO head office and on-floor advocate poor coordination in the absence of a formal application requesting for the lost documents by OP?
9. I understand that the HDFC ERGO on-floor advocate visits the DCDRC routinely and therefore might have developed a cordial relationship with everyone around but that doesn’t mean the procedures of the judicial system would be violated.
10. In a fair and impartial legal system, justice is served when all individuals and entities are treated equally under the law. By the principles of equality, equity, fairness, and justice (in this order), HDFC ERGO doesn’t seem to require to be equated by the bench by being generous as HDFC ERGO is fully capable of bearing the cost of the copy.
11. Would I receive the same generous treatment from the Court of Law in case a similar situation breeds? Do others receive similar treatment routinely?
12. Citing the overall matter, it is rightful to ask, What is the total cost of printing incurred by the court annually to provide a copy to the plaintiff or OP in the absence of a formal application? This must be calculated (investigated) because it adds to the cost of the judicial system and is passed indirectly onto taxpayers.
13. I’m questioning depending on my observation, best to my understanding, and in the greater public interest. Is the bench favoring the OP? Does the bench often favor OP of multinational companies with a multitude of cases against them therefore visiting the court routinely, and developing a cordial relationship with people in and around the court premises? Has the DCDRC bench’s integrity been compromised? What types of routine Training and Development programs have been conducted for Officers in Court to calibrate their biases, belief systems, value systems, cultural iceberg model, morals, and ethics?
14. In view of the at-scale consequential matter I’d demand an internal investigation from the Bar Council CDRC / Competent Authority to investigate, if in-case the bench is under some political pressure, compelling them to act in this biased manner favoring the OP which is a Multinational Company with immense resources and power at their disposal.
15. All these things must be looked into by the CDRC Bar Council / Competent Authority.
16. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has a lot of inclusion and amendments in acknowledging the significance of electronic records, in many cases as primary evidence as well (observed panel discussion on YouTube and news). Citing the amendments, I am appealing to the court to look into the complaint on the mandatory digitization of legal documents in multinational companies for better accessibility by all stakeholders and improved inventory management.

Here follows the copy of the Put-Up Petition to DCDRC delivered on 20 June 2024.

BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARASAT, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

C.C. №353 Of 2022

Complaint under Section 35 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
AND
In the matter of:

Ratul Aich,
……………… Complainant

Versus

The Authorised Signatories:
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited.
IRDAI Reg №146
……………… Opposite Party

The humble petition is on behalf of the complainant.

PUT UP

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. Today is the date fixed for evidence.
2. That on the 6th of May 2024, the complainant was instructed to personally deliver the Evidence Document of CC/353/2022 to the advocate representing HDFC ERGO, as it has come to light that the document was sent via registered post 13 months back, under tracking number RW579628005IN, to the HDFC ERGO head office on the 31st of March 2023 cannot be located. The delivery report is attached. Despite numerous attempts and inquiries, it appears that the document was not handed over by the HDFC ERGO head office to the on-floor advocate, citing poor communication and coordination within their internal processes.
3. That the complainant was unable to immediately produce a copy of the Evidence Document during the hearing, necessitating a request for postponement to the subsequent hearing scheduled for the 13th of September 2024.
4. That this delay is deeply concerning in terms of the disregard for the court’s time and proceedings and subsequently had an adverse impact on the plaintiff, leading to heightened levels of harassment, frustration, and agitation.
5. That the opposite party’s digital inventory management system for legal documents has proven to be inadequate and inefficient. Documents crucial to ongoing litigations are not adequately cataloged or easily accessible, leading to delays and errors in legal proceedings. This lack of proper management has directly contributed to the piling up of pending cases in CDRC and has caused unnecessary harassment and frustration to plaintiffs such as myself.
6. That the postal service processes related to legal document delivery within the company have been substandard. Instances of documents being mishandled, delayed, or lost in transit, further exacerbate the challenges faced in legal proceedings. Such negligence in postal service management reflects poorly on the opposite party’s commitment to due diligence and professionalism.
7. That if the opposite party is a multinational company, the key stakeholders often change during the lengthy litigations. A mandatory environment-friendly digital inventory (in today’s tech-savvy society) for storing and accessing legal documents will ascertain that all the stakeholders in the multinational company have access to the documents at all points in time. The complaint is important for mandatory digitization and access to legal documents by all the key stakeholders in a multinational company. I’m requesting appropriate penalties for utter negligence, carelessness, and disregarding the bench’s time, presence, and effort by the opposite party.
8. That the petition has been made bona- fide and for the ends of justice.

Hence, Your Honor would graciously be pleased to
Take the necessary steps and allow the petition and pass
Such as necessary order/orders as Your Honor may
deem Fit and proper.
Your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Date:
Place:

Regards,
Ratul Aich

A copy of the order was extracted from GoI's Confonet Portal

DCDRC North 24 Paraganas Barasat
Kolkata-700126.

Complaint Case No. CC/353/2022
RATUL AICH Vs. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. Daman Prasad Biswas PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. Sri Abhijit Basu MEMBER

PRESENT:
Dated : 02 Jul 2024

Order
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. №353/2022

P R E S E N T :-
Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.

Order №18

Dated. 02.07.2024

Today is fixed for filing questionnaire by the O.P. Complainant in person is present. Ld. Advocate for the O.P is present.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P submits that they are not well aware about the order dated 12/06/2024. However, he came today in c/w another case vide no. C.C./37/2022 and came to learn about the present case.

He further submits that he did not get the copy of evidence which filed by the Complainant before this Commission till date so question of filing questionnaire by the O.P does not arise.

Complainant submits that today copy of the evidence which he filed before this Commission is not available before him. He verbally prays for a date for supply of copy of evidence upon the O.P.

To sort out the problem this Commission by his office prepared one copy of evidence and handed over the same to the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the O.P received the same by giving receiving endorsement over the evidence of the Complainant.

To 10/07/2024 for filing questionnaire by the O.P positively.

At this stage Complainant moves the put up petition dated 18/06/2024 which received by this Commission on 20/06/2024. Complainant not yet served the copy of the said petition upon the O.P.

Today Complainant served the copy of said put up petition upon the O.P.

To 10/07/2024 for hearing the said petition, W/O if any, in the meantime.

At this stage Complainant moves the e-mail which he filed before this Commission on 24/06/2024 and placed the same before the Ld. President on 25/06/2024.

Complainant not yet served the copy of the said e-mails upon the O.P.

Today Complainant served the copy of said e-mails upon the O.P.

To 10/07/2024 for hearing the said e-mails, W/O if any, in the meantime.

Member President

[HON’BLE MR. Daman Prasad Biswas] PRESIDENT
[HON’BLE MR. Sri Abhijit Basu] MEMBER

Concerns Over DCDRC Bench’s Integrity

The matter has been reported to the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Bar Council of India.

from: ratul aich <ratulaich@gmail.com>
to: confo-pn-wb@nic.in,
wb-sforum@nic.in,
ncdrc@nic.in,
bciinfo21@gmail.com
cc: dr.ncdrc@gov.in,
confo-rh-wb@gov.in,
Prof Arul Selvan IGNOU MAJMCOL <ksarul@ignou.ac.in>,
“Dr. Amit Kumar Assistant Professor” <amitkumar@ignou.ac.in>,
“Dr. Shikha Rai Associate Professor MAJMC Coordinator IGNOU” <shikharai@ignou.ac.in>,
Ms Padmini Jain Assistant Professor MAJMC Coordinator IGNOU <padminijain@ignou.ac.in>,
gro@hdfcergo.com
date: Jul 12, 2024, 12:30 PM
subject: Re: Complaining to WB SCDRC for disregarding DCDRC bench time, presence, and effort by OP HDFC ERGO
mailed-by: gmail.com

Hon’ble Bar Council and Hon’ble SCDRC / NCDRC,
This is to bring to your kind notice that likely the Bench’s Integrity has been Compromised, wrt CC/353/2022 (primarily), and CC/354/2022 (secondary), District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. EW040383997IN Delivered to State CDRC. PFA delivery report. PFB details.

Regards,
Ratul Aich

First in the series is Judicial Investigation Friendly Digital Systems, Judibility. (Link)

Previous in the series is Orders and Proceedings Weren’t Appearing on Confonet Post 6 May 2024. (Link)

Next in the series is the Letter to NCDRC GOI to Use Digital Softcopies, RTI NCDRC-R-E-22–00281. (Link)