Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/12/53

HDFC ARGO GIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH.S.GOSWAMI

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            REVISION PETITION NO. 53/2012

(Arising out of order dated 10.07.2012 passed in Execution Case No.139/2009 Ex10 by the District Forum, Guna)  

 

MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.                          …          PETITIONERS.

 

Versus

 

HARJEET SINGH.                                                                …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA   :  PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                          :      MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL                         :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

08.03.2017

 

          Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner.

           Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent.

             

As per Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena : 

                       The petitioner/judgment debtor has filed this revision against the order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guna in Execution Case No. 139/2009 Ex10.

2.                     Vide order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the District Forum in CCNo.139/2009 it was directed that the judgment debtor/opposite party no.5 shall reconsider about the damage caused to the engine of the vehicle and decide the insurance claim of the complainant by speaking order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, and shall also pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.

3.                     The issue before us is that by a letter dated 18.05.2010 the insurance company closed the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’.  The Forum in the execution proceedings prima facie found that the judgement debtor/opposite party no.5 did not decide the claim by speaking order within 45 days, therefore took the cognizance under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer

-2-

Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioner/opposite party.  Since the officer of the opposite party no.5 was absent, the Forum summoned the opposite party no.5 by warrant of arrest.

4.                     The petitioner/opposite party no.5 has challenged the said order.  On perusal of record including the impugned order it is apparent that the matter is still pending before execution court for disposal.  Since opposite party no.5 was not present before the District Forum in person, warrant was issued.

5.                     On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that both parties shall appear in the execution proceedings before the Forum on 25.04.2017.  The Forum shall afford both parties opportunity of hearing and production of documents if needed, and decide the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act in accordance with law.  It is however directed that till final conclusion of the proceedings, the Forum shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner/opposite party no.5.  The said order shall however be subject to condition of petitioner/opposite party no.5 paying a cost of Rs.2500/- to respondent/complainant.

6.                     With the direction aforesaid this revision stands disposed of.