IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision: 05.04.2016

First Appeal No.35/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 14.12.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.352/2013 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (South-West), Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi

In the matter of:

Mrs. Dharmishtha Arya,

W/o Sh. Asahwani Kaushal,

R/o 742, Sector-11, Tyupe-II,

Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi.

 …..........Appellant

Versus

1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Through its Directors,

306, 3^rd Floor, Pearl Best Heights,

Netaji Subhash Place,

Pitampura, New Delhi.

2. Suraksha Enterprise,

Through its Proprietor,

13/A/15, WEA Block,

Braham Puri, New China Market,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

                                                ….….....Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

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

1. In this appeal prayer is made for setting aside is order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the Consumer District Redressal Forum (in short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.352/2013, by which the complaint of the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum has been dismissed in default.
2. Counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that son of the counsel for the appellant/complainant who was conducting the complaint had expired and due to the said reason, the counsel did not attend the case before the District Forum. It is further stated that due to aforesaid shock he could not inform the complaint also. In these circumstances no appearance was made before the District Forum on behalf of the complainant on 14.12.2015 and the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance.
3. Counsel for respondent No.1/OP No.1 states that he is not opposing in case the impugned order is set aside by the Commission.
4. Respondent No.2/OP No.2 is not yet served. It is also stated that respondent No.2/OP No.2 was ex-parte before the District Forum. In these circumstances there is no need to serve the respondent No.2/OP No.2.
5. Considering the reasoning given as well as no objection given by the respondent No.1/OP No.2, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2015, by which the complaint has been dismissed in default.
6. Let parties appear before the District Forum on 19.05.2016, whereupon the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
7. The appeal stands disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum(South West) for information and keeping it on record for compliance

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

(Salma Noor)

Member

TC