Haryana

StateCommission

RP/84/2016

EDELWEISS TOKIO LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMLESH - Opp.Party(s)

JAGDISH KUMAR

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  84 of 2016

Date of Institution:        04.10.2016

Date of Decision :         09.11.2016

 

 

1.      Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Limited having its office at 15^th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, Senpati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone, Mumbai-400013 through its Authorized Signatory.

2.      Santosh Kumar Pandey (Sales Manager) son of Sh. Kuber Nath Pandey, resident of House No.368, Baselwa Colony, Faridabad, Correspondence Address: House No.89, Sector 12, Block H, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

 

Kamlesh wife of Mukesh Kumar, Village Chandawali, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Maninder Singh, Advocate for petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Limited and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2 against the order dated April 26^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioners were proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that petitioners were never served upon.  The impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file written version and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is November 22^nd, 2016 for issuance of notice to opposite party No.3.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioners.  Petitioners were proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide impugned order observing as under:-

          “Registered notice sent to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 on 12.03.2016.  More than one month has passed.  Registered notice sent to opposite party No.3 received back with the postal remarks ‘Left’.  Notice be issued to opposite party No.3 for 13.06.2016 through registered post on filing of correct address. Registered notice sent to opposite party No.1 and 2 neither received back served or unserved nor any one appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and 2 till 3.00 P.M.  No more wait is justified.  Therefore, opposite parties No.1 and 2 are proceeded ex parte.”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on April 26^th, 2016, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioners, as notice of the complaint not received back served or unserved and more than one month had passed.  Thus, it becomes clear that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioners. It is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file written version and contest the complaint.   

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

6.      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.

7.      The petitioners are directed to appear before the District Forum, on November 22^nd, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 09.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK