राज्य उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग, उ0प्र0, लखनऊ
अपील संख्या-2439/2014
(मौखिक)
(जिला उपभोक्ता फोरम-द्वितीय, लखनऊ द्वारा परिवाद संख्या 125/2012 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 19.08.2014 के विरूद्ध)
Anil Kumar Tiwari, S/o Sri Daya Shanker Tiwari, R/o 561/38 Sindhu Nagar, Manas Nagar, Lucknow. ....................अपीलार्थी/परिवादी
बनाम
1. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Pvt. Limited 5th Floor, JMD
Regent Square Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-122001, Through
its Senior Manager.
2. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Pvt Limited Chintels House
1st Floor. 16 Station Road Lucknow;226001 through its Manager.
3. Relegare Insurance Broking Ltd. Radha Krishna Bhawan 1st Floor
3/A5-Park Road Hazratganj, Lucknow;226001 through its Branch
Manager. ................प्रत्यर्थीगण/विपक्षीगण
समक्ष:-
1. माननीय न्यायमूर्ति श्री वीरेन्द्र सिंह, अध्यक्ष।
2. माननीय श्री जितेन्द्र नाथ सिन्हा, सदस्य(न्यायिक)।
3. माननीय श्री राज कमल गुप्ता, सदस्य।
अपीलार्थी की ओर से उपस्थित : श्री मनीष पाण्डेय, विद्वान अधिवक्ता।
प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से उपस्थित : कोई नहीं।
दिनांक: 27.11.2014
माननीय न्यायमूर्ति श्री वीरेन्द्र सिंह, अध्यक्ष द्वारा उदघोषित
निर्णय
अपीलार्थी द्वारा यह अपील जिला उपभोक्ता फोरम-द्वितीय, लखनऊ द्वारा परिवाद संख्या 125/2012 अनिल कुमार तिवारी बनाम अवीवा लाइफ इंश्योरेंश कम्पनी व अन्य में पारित आदेश दिनांक 19.08.2014 के विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत की गयी है। विवादित आदेश निम्नवत् है:-
'' प्रकरण पुकारा गया।
पक्षकार अनुपस्थित।
परिवादी विगत कई तिथियों से अनुपस्थित चल रहा है। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि परिवादी परिवाद में बल देना नहीं चाहता है। परिवाद अदम
-2-
पैरवी में खारिज किया जाता है।
पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर हो।''
श्री मनीष पाण्डेय विद्वान अधिवक्ता अपीलार्थी को सुना गया और अभिलेख का अवलोकन किया गया।
पत्रावली का अवलोकन यह दर्शाता है कि दिनांक 19.08.2014 को परिवादी जिसका प्रतिनिधित्व अधिवक्ता द्वारा किया जा रहा था, फोरम के समक्ष उपस्थित नहीं होने के कारण परिवाद निरस्त कर दिया गया था, जो कि हमारी राय में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रतिपादित निम्नलिखित विधिक सिद्धान्त की भावना के प्रतिकूल है और इसीलिए हम इस अपील को प्रत्यर्थी पक्ष को नोटिस निर्गत किए बिना ही स्वीकार करते हुए प्रश्नगत आदेश को अपास्त किया जाना न्यायोचित पाते हैं और इस मामले को जिला मंच के समक्ष इस आशय से प्रतिप्रेषित किया जाना उपयुक्त पाते हैं कि जिला मंच दोनों पक्षों को पर्याप्त अवसर देते हुए गुणदोष के आधार पर परिवाद को निस्तारित किया जाना सुनिश्चित करें।
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of RAFIQ AND ANOTHER Versus MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER (1981) 2 SCC 788 in respect to Practice and Procedure that contesting parties should not suffer for lapses on the part of their counsel. Ex parte order of dismissal of appeal was passed by High Court on non-appearance of appellant's counsel on the date of hearing in that case. Application made by counsel for recalling the order and for permission to participate in the hearing of the appeal was rejected on ground of unexplained delay in presenting the application to the court. Rejection of the application was not found justified as the party should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent, the lawyer. Costs was also ordered to be recovered from the counsel who absented in that case. The Apex Court Observed :
-3-
“ The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr A K Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe, we do not know, he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A K Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct
-4-
that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs 200 should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr A K Sanghi.”
अत: प्रश्नगत आदेश को अपास्त किए जाने योग्य पाया जाता है और यह अवधारित किया जाता है कि जिला उपभोक्ता फोरम उभय पक्ष के मध्य लम्बित विवाद के सम्बन्ध में परिवादी का परिवाद उभय पक्ष को समुचित अवसर प्रदान करते हुए गुणदोष के आधार पर निर्णीत किया जाना सुनिश्चित करें।
आदेश
अपील उपरोक्त स्वीकार करते हुए प्रश्नगत आदेश दिनांकित 19.08.2014 अपास्त किया जाता है और यह मामला जिला उपभोक्ता फोरम-द्वितीय, लखनऊ को प्रतिप्रेषित करते हुए निर्देश दिया जाता है कि जिला मंच उभय पक्ष को समुचित अवसर देते हुए परिवाद को गुणदोष के आधार पर निस्तारित किया जाना सुनिश्चित करें। परिवादी को यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि वह जिला मंच के समक्ष दिनांक 02.01.2015 को उपस्थित होकर प्रश्नगत परिवाद में कार्यवाही कराया जाना सुनिश्चित करें।
(न्यायमूर्ति वीरेन्द्र सिंह) (जितेन्द्र नाथ सिन्हा) (राज कमल गुप्ता)
अध्यक्ष सदस्य(न्यायिक) सदस्य
जितेन्द्र आशु. ग्रेड-2
कोर्ट नं-1
