F.A.No.590/2011 against C C.No.144/2010 District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

Between

P.V.Satyanarayana,

S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy,

Aged 49 years, R/o.Flat No.11,

Prince Apartments, Balajinagar,

Near Siripuram IDBI Bank,

Visakhapatnam.                                          Appellant/complainant.                       

        And

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company

    Limited, rep. by its Managing Director,

    Zenith House, Kesavarao Khade Marg,

    Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400 034.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company

    Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager,

    Opp:Bata Showroom,

    Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

3. TTK Health care TPA Private Limited,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    2^nd floor, Anmol Palani,

    G.N.Chetty Road,

    T.Nagar, Chennai.                                                   Respondents /

                                                                                Opp.parties.

Counsel for the Appellant             :  M/s.T.B.B.Krishna Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents         : M/s.S.Shravan Kumar-R1 & R2

                                                   R3-service of notice held sufficient.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

***

        This is an appeal preferred  by the unsuccessful complainant against the dismissal of his complaint for default.

The complainant alleges that after closure of evidence of both sides and after opposite party No.2 has submitted his arguments, the District Forum posted the matter to 11-10-2010 for continuation of arguments of O.P.2.  However, on the said date, it dismissed the complaint.  A perusal of docket order dated 11-10-2010 reads as follows:

 ‘The complainant is called absent for want of representation.  Whereas the learned counsel for the contesting O.P. i.e. 2^nd O.P. reports ready.  But a perusal of the case record reveals that the written arguments of the complainant are not submitted so far.  Number of adjourments already granted for facilitating the complainant to submit, turn up and proceed with the case, but of no use.  It goes without saying that the complainant is not diligent in prosecuting his claimed covered by this case and as such no useful purpose will be served by adjourning the case time and again.  The case is, therefore, liable to be dismissed of the complainant and accordingly dismissed for default of the complainant.  No costs’.

Since the entire evidence has been recorded and even arguments of the opposite party No.2 were heard in part, assuming that the complainant did not choose to argue, still the District Forum ought to have pronounced the order on merits.  Dismissing the complaint for default at the stage of arguments does not hold good.  Evidently, the entire evidence was let in, therefore, we are of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to the complainant to argue the matter if he intends to utilize the chance.  The District Forum is directed to restore the complaint to its original file and give  opportunity to both parties to argue and on failure to utilize the opportunity by any of the parties, it shall pass orders on merits.

In the light of the circumstances stated above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the District Forum is directed to restore the complaint to its original file.  Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 02-7-2012 without insisting for fresh notice and argue the matter and the District Forum in turn shall  dispose of the matter on merits.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                             15-6-2012