Haryana

StateCommission

RP/13/2022

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

04 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.13  of 2022

 Date of Institution:30.03.2022

  Date  of  Decision:04.05.2022

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through its authorized signatory SCO No.156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9 Chandigarh 160009

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

1.      Dharam Singh S/o Ram Singh R/o Village Anjanthali Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal.

2.      Oriental Bank of commerce, Taraori Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Punit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  05.02.2020 and order dated 21.01.2022 in Consumer Complaint No.188 of 2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal vide which Opposite Party No.2 vide which the defence of the OP No.2 has struck off and further the review application has also dismissed.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Mr.Punit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionist had also been properly perused and examined.

3.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Punit Jain, Advocate for the revisionist that no documents were supplied to the OP NO.2 by the complainant and on the next date of hearing i.e. 05.02.2020 again proxy counsel on behalf of OP No.2 requested for supplying of those material documents for filing reply, but, the same was declined by the learned District Commission arbitrarily and imposed the cost of Rs.5000/- and further the defence of OP NO.2 also struck off vide order dated 05.02.2020.  It was further submitted that due to Covid Pandemic, the matter was adjourned on various dates. The petitioners filed review application for allowing the OP No.2 to file reply, but, the learned District Commission wrongly dismissed the review application.  The non- filing of reply by the OP NO.2 on 05.02.2020 was neither willful not intentional but is on account of the abovesaid reasons. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that set aside the order dated 05.02.2020 and 21.02.2022 and permission to file written statement.

4.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that defence struck off and review application proceedings were initiated against opposite party No.2, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P. No.2  is afforded an opportunity to defend itself  before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, defence struck off proceedings dated 05.02.2020 and review application proceedings dated 21.01.2022 initiated against  O.P. No.2-petitioners are set aside.  Revision Petition is allowed. The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the petitioners while putting in appearance before the District Commission, Karnal which costs be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Dharam-Singh.  Let the petitioners be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

5.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Karnal on 04.07.2022 for further proceedings.

6.      This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents 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.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission, Karnal.

 

04th  May, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)