F.A.No.665/2013 against C.C.No.08/2013,      

Between:

 Smt.

 Aged about 65 years,

R/o.H.No.1-28, Near Water Tank, Main Road,

Village &                                …Appellant/

                                                                                   Complainant

    And

1.The Manager, Claims Department,  

    Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    D.No.4-1-327,4^th

      Hyderabad-500 082.

2. C.E.O./Branch  

     Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society,

3. C.E.O  Manger, 

    The   Co-  Central Bank Ltd.,

    Cinema Road,           .. Respondents/

Counsel for the Appellant     :     M/s.

Counsel for the       M/s.

                                               R2 & R3 -served   
                                                 

QUORUM:   SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,

                                         AND

                    SRI   RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

             FRIDAY, THE DAY OF SEPTEMBER,      

                         TWO   THIRTEEN .

Oral Order: (  Sri           

                                    ***

        The appellant/complainant preferred this appeal against the order   a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.      and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

        In  complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties by the District Forum  and the opposite parties filed written version  and thereafter the complaint was coming for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.   At that stage, the complaint was dismissed for default on 26.6.2013, when the   was   called absent and there was no representation on behalf of the complainant.   

The contention of the appellant/complainant is that there was   Quorum for a long  period and  a single Member used to give adjournments only. That the Family Court Judge Sri   at 4.45 p.m. the  bench dismissed seven different complaints on the same day for default. Thus, there is material irregularity and illegality in condu;cting  proceedings, as per the convenience,  without the knowledge and information to the concerned advocates   and parties, before passing  adverse orders. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 

         We are not inclined to go into the merits of the above contention of the appellant/complainant.  As seen from the Docket Sheet maintained by the District the complaint was posted for 12.6.2013 for the first time  for filing proof affidavit of the complainant  and from 12.6.2013 the complaint was posted to 26.6.2013  for filing proof affidavit of the complainant . On that date the complainant was called absent and there was no representation and the District Forum dismissed the complaint for default,   when there is no quorum  for a long period.   

          In view of the contention of the appellant/complainant   having regard to the    principles of natural justice and equity, we  are inclined to set aside  the impugned order of the District Forum, to  give chance to  the complainant to  prove his case as stated in the complaint.

In the result, the appeal is the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.   District Forum is  directed  to  restore the complaint  to file. The   and   are  directed to appear before the District Consumer Forum,  file proof affidavit on that day, without insisting  for issuance  of  any notice.  In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                INCHARGE PRESIDENT

                                                                         MEMBER

Pm*                                                                  Dt. 27.9.2013