| Complaint Case No. CC/13/2021 | | ( Date of Filing : 22 Jan 2021 ) |
| | | | 1. Susanta Kumar Mohapatra, aged about 50 years | | S/o. Late Pratap Chandra Mohapatra, At- Manikhamb, Barbati, Dist- Balasore. | | Odisha |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Competent Authority, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Having its Regd. Office at Mumbai | | 1st Floor, HDFC House, 165-166 Back Bay Reclaimation, HT Parekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai. | | Maharashtra | | 2. Head, Claims Department, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Having its Regd. Office at Mumbai | | 1st Floor, HDFC House, 165-166 Back Bay Reclaimation, HT Parekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai. | | Maharashtra | | 3. Authorised Officer, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Servicing Office at Cuttack | | OSL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., OSL Tower, 2nd Floor, Badambadi, P.S- Badambadi, Dist- Cuttack. | | Odisha | | 4. Chief Grievance Officer, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai | | D-301, 3rd Floor, Eastern Business District (Magnet Mall), LBS Marg, Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400078. | | Maharashtra | | 5. Authorised Signatory, Hyundai Assurance, New Delhi | | Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 2nd & 6th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025. | | New Delhi | | 6. Authorised Signatory, Sand City Auto Tech Pvt. Ltd., Balasore | | Bampada, P.S- Industrial, Dist- Balasore. | | Odisha | | 7. CEO and MD, Hyundai Motors, New Delhi | | 2nd & 6th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025. | | New Delhi | | 8. Branch Head, Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd., Balasore | | At/P.O/Dist- Balasore. | | Odisha |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | The case is posted today for further hearing. Neither the complainant nor his Advocate is present nor taken any step. Advocates for the O.Ps No.5 & 6 are present and filed separate haziras. Advocates for the O.Ps No.1 to 4 & O.P No.8 are absent, no steps filed. On repeated calls, none respond on behalf of the complainant. Hence, hearing of the case could not be taken up. In the present case, the O.Ps No.1 to 6 & 8 were appeared and filed their w/vs. As it appears from the case record that the complainant remained absent since 10.04.23 to till today, for which hearing of the case impaired and the valuable time of this Commission is being wasted. Considering the nature and conduct of the complainant, this Commission is of the view that the complaint of the complainant should be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for non-prosecution of the case. The interim order, if any, passed against the O.Ps is treated to be infructuous. | |
