Haryana

StateCommission

RP/19/2016

HDFC STD.LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEMA CHAUDHARY - Opp.Party(s)

AMAN SHARMA

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                           

                                                          Revision Petition No  :  19 of 2016

Date of Institution:                 16.02.2016

Date of Decision :         26.02.2016

 

1.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, Branch Office, SCO 17, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 14, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

2.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Head Office: Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

 

Hema Chaudhary wife of Lt. Raman Chaudhary, r/o House No.33, Ashok Vihar, Phase 3, Ext. Gali No.B-10, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:               Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate for petitioners.

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present revision petition, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company-opposite parties (petitioners) have challenged the order dated December 03^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioners were proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file reply and contest the complaint.   The next date of hearing before the District Forum is April 25^th, 2016.

3.      Justice is the goal of jurisprudence.  No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.   The ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file reply and contest the complaint. For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.2000/- which is to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioners are accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

5.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent 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 petitioners are directed to appear before the District Forum, on April 25^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 26.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

U.K