Haryana

StateCommission

RP/21/2019

TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMLESH - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Revision Petition No:   21 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution:        28.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision :         07.03.2019

 

 

1.      Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st 3^rd Floor, SCO 254, First Floor, Sector 12, Part I, Karnal through Shri Harsimran Singh, Manager (Legal).

2.      Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, 14^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through its Mangar.

 

          Present Revision Petition is being filed through Shri Harsimran Singh, Manager (Legal) Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.2939-2940, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Kamlesh, aged about 55 years wife of late Shri Udey Singh Kundu, resident of 359, Dhurana, Sonepat.

Contesting Respondent

                                

2.      Bijender Kumar son of Shri Krishan, Agent of Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, vide code No.004486740, resident of Village Dhurana, Tehsil Khanpur, District Sonepat.

 

                                      Performa Respondent

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                  

                                     

Present:     Shri S.C. Thatai,          counsel for the petitioners.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Opposite parties No.1 and 2 have filed the present revision petition under Section 17(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, whereby their evidence has been closed by order.

2.      From a perusal of the impugned order, it is made out that the evidence of the complainant was closed on 13.04.2018 and thereafter the case was adjourned for 09.05.2018 for recording evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 2. On 09.05.2018 when the evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 2 was not ready, a request was made by their learned counsel for an adjournment, which was granted by giving last opportunity. On 20.11.2018, opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed an application for summoning of service record, leave record and medical reimbursement record of the deceased, which was allowed and one last opportunity was granted for their evidence. On 06.11.2018 when the complaint was adjourned to 20.11.2018 for evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 2, costs of Rs.300/- were imposed. The costs were however not paid. Observing that the application dated 20.11.2018 was moved by opposite parties No.1 and 2 to delay the proceedings, learned District Consumer Forum found no justification for granting another opportunity to opposite parties No.1 and 2 and accordingly closed their evidence by order.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that due to inadvertence, they could not produce certain witnesses on their own besides summoning the official witnesses for producing the medical record and in case, an opportunity is granted, they would examine their entire evidence.

4.      Without commenting upon the merits of the stand taken by the petitioners but in the interest of justice, it would be expedient to grant more time to the petitioners to lead their evidence before the learned District Consumer Forum. The Commission has been informed that the case is now pending before the learned District Consumer Forum for 14.03.2019 for arguments.

5.      Resultantly, the revision petition is disposed of by granting another opportunity to the petitioners/opposite parties No.1 and 2 to produce the evidence on their own on 14.03.2019 besides permitting them to summon the record qua service record, leave record and medical reimbursement record of the deceased. This order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.300/- imposed upon them by the learned District Forum on 06.11.2018 and another sum of Rs.3000/- as costs imposed upon them by the Commission payable by opposite parties No.1 and 2 to the complainant before the learned District Forum on 14.03.2019 itself.

6.      This revision petition is being disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents 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.      Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Forum.

 

 

 

Announced 07.03.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  U.K.