Haryana

StateCommission

A/255/2019

UMA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AJIT MALIK

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.255 of 2019

 Date of Institution:12.03.2019

  Date of Decision:02.04.2019

 

Uma Rani (aged about 36 years) W/o Late Sh. Devender Singh, R/o Indian Colony, Gohana Road By-Pass, Sonepat, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

…..Appellant.

Versus

 

1.      Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon through Jagmohan Motors, Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., Bahalgarh Road, Sonepat.

2.      State Bank of India Branch at Rathdhana Road, Sonepat through its Manager by which car No.HR-10X-7988 was financed.

…Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

                  

Present:-    Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

           

1.                Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

2.                Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant against the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short ‘learned District Forum’), vide which her complaint bearing No.295 of 2018 titled as “Uma Rani Vs. Iffco Tokio & Anr.” was dismissed for want of prosecution.

3.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4.               The argument have been advanced by Sh. Ajit Malik, learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire records of the appeal had been properly perused and examined.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that after filing the complaint before learned District Forum, notice of motion was issued to the respondents and the case was fixed for 21.12.2018 for hearing, but counsel for complainant could not appeared before the learned District Forum because he was busy in some other court and complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 21.12.2018. It was further argued that non appearance of the present appellant-complainant before the learned District Forum was neither intentional nor willful, so the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 may be set-aside and an opportunity may be given to the present appellant-complainant for leading its evidence and advancing final arguments.

6.                From the perusal of record, it is clear that the complaint bearing No.295 of 2018 titled as “Uma Rani Vs. Iffco Tokio & Anr.” was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 21.12.2018 by learned District Forum, Sonepat. However, It is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. So, the present appellant-complainant should be afforded an opportunity of representing herself before learned District Forum. Under these circumstances, impugned order dated  21.12.2018 passed by learned District Forum, Sonepat is set-aside for all intents and purposes, present appeal stands allowed and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum, Sonepat to decide the complaint on merits after affording an opportunity to present appellant to lead evidence and argue the case on merits. The appeal be consigned to the record room.

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Sonepat on 08.05.2019 for further proceedings. 

 

 

April   02^nd,  2019                   Manjula                                  Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                        Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                           Addl. Bench              

           

R.K.