Delhi

StateCommission

A/213/2018

MR. RAHUL JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MAN MOHAN GUPTA

16 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision:  16.05.2018

 

First Appeal No.213/2018

(Arising out of the order dated 08.06.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.1436/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), New Delhi)

 

 

Shri Rahul Jindal,

382, Kohat Enclave,

Pitampura, Delhi -110034.

                                            …Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

 

1. HDFC Ergo GIC Ltd.,

Through Branch Manager,

14, Ambadeep Building,

Ground Floor, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2. Shri Naveen Tandon,

AVP – Claim,

HDFFC Ergo GIC Ltd.,

Office No.306, 3^rd Floor,

Pearl Best Heights,

Netaji Subhash Place,

Pitampura, Delhi -110034.

 

3. HDFC Ergo GIC Ltd.,
   Through Managing Director,

1^st Floor, 165-166, Backbey Reclamation,

HT Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai.

 

4. Suraksha Enterprises,

13-A/15, WEA, Brahmapuri,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005.

                                                                                                                

                                      ….Respondents

 

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

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(in short the Act) wherein prayer is made for recalling of the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) in CC No.108/2014 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed for non-appearance.
2. Counsel for the appellant/complainant has pointed out that the matter was heard and reserved for orders on 02.11.2016. Thereafter, counsel for the appellant/complainant had been making visit to the District Forum after every 2-3 months for knowing the status of the case but nothing was revealed. On 06.04.2018, when counsel for the appellant/complainant made enquiry it was revealed that on 02.04.2018 the case has been dismissed for non-appearance. It is stated that after reserving the matter for orders, no notice was given to the appellant/complainant for re-listing of the matter. It is stated that everything was done by the appellant/complainant and only the order was to be passed, in these circumstances District Forum ought not have dismissed the case for non-appearance.
3. We have not issued notice of the present appeal to the respondent/OP as on the date when the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance none had appeared for the respondents/OPs.
4. There is nothing on record to show that fresh notice was issued to complainant for re-hearing. Once the matter was reserved for orders, Ld. District Forum ought to have issued fresh notice to parties when it was re-listed.
5. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and restore the complaint to its original number.
6. Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 31.07.2018. It is clarified that if no one appears on behalf of the respondent/OP before the District Forum, District Forum before proceeding in the matter shall issue fresh notice to the respondents/OPs.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.

Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President