Haryana

StateCommission

RP/82/2019

INDIA BULLS HOME LOANS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANITA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

PARASN MONEY GOYAL

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Revision Petition No.82   of 2019

 Date of Institution:27.09.2019

  Date  of  Decision:27.01.2020

 

Indiabulls Home Loans, Indiabulls House, 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 through Vice Chairman & Managing Director.

 

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1.      Ms. Anita Sharma W/o Late Sh.Chander Parkash Sharma R/o H.No.268, Sector 30, Faridabad, Haryana.

 

2.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance co. Ltd. 2knd Floor, Krishna towers, BP-55, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 through Branch Head.

 

3.      ICICI Lombard House, 414, P. Ballu Marg, Off Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial  Member

                    Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Mohit Garg proxy counsel for Mr.P.M.Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr.J.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                 ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

There is a delay of 43 days in filing and re-filing of the revision petition and the same is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice.

2.      Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  05.07.2019  vide which the application moved by Opposite Party No.3 for recalling the ex parte order dated 15.04.2019 against O.P.No.3 was dismissed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short ‘District Forum).

3.      The brief facts of the case are that  the complainant applied for home loan from O.P.No.3, and an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was sanctioned to her to buy an affordable flat No.111, 1^st floor, Amolik Heights, Sector-88, Faridabad, Haryana.  An EMI of Rs.14,582/- per month was settled.  The home loan was insured from OP No.1  through O.P.No.3 and paid the amount of Rs.80,783/- against the full premium of the Home Loan Insurance.  O.P.No.1 and 2 was supposed to issue the policy for covering the whole amount of the loan, but, it has issued the policy only  for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- inspite of charging full premium for the whole loan amount of Rs.14,00,000/-. The ICICI Lombard vide its mail dated November 27, 2018 refused to accept complainant’s request to increase the insured amount to Rs.14,00,000/-.   O.P. emailed him on January 9, 2009 and expressed her inability to insure for the full loan amount on mail.  Thus there was unfair trade practice on behalf of the O.Ps.  

4.      The argument has been advanced by Mr.Mohit Garg proxy counsel for Mr.P.M.Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Mohit Garg proxy counsel for Mr.P.M.Goyal, the learned counsel for the revisionist that  summons issued to the respondent was duly received by the office of the petitioner in Gurgaon belatedly and as such requisite instructions could not be issued to the counsel for putting in appearance on 15.04.2019.  The learned District Forum vide order dated 15.04.2019 has proceeded against the O.P.-petitioner ex parte.  The counsel for petitioner respondent No.3 also filed an application before the learned District Forum to recall of order dated 15.04.2019, which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2019. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that   application  for recalling the order dated 05.07.2019 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 15.04.2019 be set aside.

6.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceeding was initiated against O.P., but petitioner was not allowed to join further proceedings by recalling the ex parte order dated 15.04.2019.  It is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P. is afforded an opportunity to defend them before the learned forum, so in these circumstances, order dated 05.07.2019 and ex parte  proceedings dated 15.04.2019 against  O.P. -petitioner are set aside subject to the payment of Rs.10000/- as costs to be paid to the complainant-respondent.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

7.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned Forum on 29.01.2020 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

8.      This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to imparting substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27, 2002.

9.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum dasti.

 

27th  January, 2020           Manjula,                                Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)

 

C.M.No.317 of 2019 in

R.P.No.82 of 2019

 

Present:-    Mr. Mohit Garg proxy counsel for Mr. P.M.Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr.J.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondent.

 

 

                    Vide separate order of even date, the revision petition is preponed from  28.02.2020 for today.

                    The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

 

27th  January, 2020           Manjula,                                Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)