Haryana

StateCommission

RP/88/2017

HDFC ERGO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURGAWATI DEVI PAL - Opp.Party(s)

MOHAN LAL SINGHI

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.88 of 2017

Date of Institution:  22.09.2017

Date of Decision:   25.09.2017

 

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized representative, SCO No.124-125, Sector-8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Durgawati Devi, aged about 55 years wife of late Shri Ramdhani Pal,

 

2.      Amit Pal, aged about 23 years, son of late Shri Ramdhani Pal,

 

3.      Smita Pal, aged about 22 years, daughter of late Shri Ramdhani Pal

 

4.      Gourav Pal, aged about 19 years, son of late Shri Ramdhani Pal

 

All residents of House No.2154/P-3, Basant Vihar Colony, Kalka.

 

Respondents No.1 to 4-Complainants

 

 

5.      Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC), through its Manager/Authorized Representative, Branch Office at Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

          IInd Address: Registered Office: Raman House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020.

 

Respondent No.5-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                         

 

Present:     Shri Subhash Chand, counsel for the petitioners.

         

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

 

Challenge is to the order dated August 22^nd, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (petitioner herein) was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Clerk of the counsel appearing before the District Forum wrongly noted the date October 22^nd, 2017 instead of August 22^nd, 2017 due to which nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner was proceeded ex parte. The next date of hearing before the District Forum is October 12^th, 2017.

3.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint. 

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.3,000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents No.1 to 4-complainants, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

5.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart 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 Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

6.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on October 12^th, 2017, the date already fixed.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.     

  

September 25th, 2017

(Balbir Singh)  Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

D.R.