Delhi

StateCommission

RP/20/2014

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

Versus

EVEREST MACHINES AIDI - Opp.Party(s)

13 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :13.4.2015

Revision Petition No. 20/14.

(Setting aside the order dated 28.04.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.1227/08 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (New Delhi) M-Block, Vikas Bhavan, New Delhi)

In the matter of

Bajaj Allianz GIC Limited

Block No. 4, 7^th Floor, DLF Tower,

15 Shivaji Marg,

New Delhi-110015

……Petitioner

 

Versus

Everest Machines Aids

260, Cycle Market Complex,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110055.

•  

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

Present:    Sh. P.C. Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioner

               

       

1. In this revision petition, challenge has been made to order dated 28.4.2010 by which the petitioner herein i.e. OP before the District Forum have been proceeded ex-parte.
2. It is stated that the petitioner was never served before the District Forum.  It is further stated  that in the third week of January, 2014 while searching the Inter-net, the petitioner had come to know about the pendency of the complaint case i.e. CC No. 1227/2008 before the District Forum and thereafter the application for inspection was moved and the petitioner had come to know that the petitioner/OP had proceeded ex-parte on 28.4.2010.  Thereafter immediate steps were taken to set aside the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner by filing the present petition.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petition is filed within 30 days after coming know about that the petitioner/OP had been proceeded ex-parte.
4. Various efforts were made to serve to the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum. Even the notice was also given ‘dasti’ to the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. However, notice could not be served and the Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent/complainant is also not appearing before the District Forum and order sheets of the District Forum is also filed which shows that for the past about one year, the respondent/complainant has not appeared before the District Forum and the District Forum is repeatedly sending the notices to him.
5. Even the notice of the present petition sent  from this Commission is also received back with the report “On enquiry person not traceable”. Efforts to serve ‘dasti’ notice have also failed. In these circumstance no further efforts are made to serve the respondent/complainant.
6. In view of the reasoning given in the petition for non appearance on 28.4.10 which is supported with the affidavit of the Legal Manager of the petitioner, the petitioner/OP bas been able to show sufficient cause due to which no appearance was made before the District Forum.
7. In view of the above discussions, the revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to contest the proceedings before the District Forum
8. The next date before the District Forum is stated to be 29.4.2015. On the said date, the petitioner/OP shall appear before the District Forum.
9. It is clarified that the District Forum shall not proceed further in the matter without notice to the respondent/complainant.

 

FDR, if any, be release in favour of appellant as per rule.

  

        A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.

                               

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President