Haryana

StateCommission

RP/111/2016

BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUSUM DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No :  111 of 2016

Date of Institution:        29.11.2016

Date of Decision :         27.01.2017

 

 

1.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Panipat through Ms. Aakriti Manocha, Deputy Manager-Legal.

2.      Managing Director/Assistant Manager (Claims) Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, 1, India Bulls Centre, Tower-1, 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Kusum Devi widow of late Sh. Suraj Bhan, resident of Village Behrampur, Mandir Wali Gali, Tehsil Bapoli, District Panipat (Haryana).

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

                                                                                               

Present:               Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for petitioners.

                             Smt. Kusum Devi-complainant with Lakhi Ram

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. and its Managing Director-opposite parties (petitioners) have filed the present revision petition against the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby, application filed by them to summon the witnesses was dismissed on the short ground that the same was filed at a belated stage.

2.      Smt. Kusum Devi-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum against the petitioners. 

3.      The complainant has closed her evidence on 19.08.2016.  Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 02.09.2016, 29.09.2016, 13.10.2016, 26.10.2016 and 08.11.2016 for recording evidence of petitioners.  On 26.10.2016, the petitioners tendered the affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to R-10 and wanted to file an application for summoning of witnesses.  Vide impugned order, the said application was dismissed by the District Forum. Due opportunity has to allowed to both the parties to defend their case lest it shall amount to curtailing the right of one party in allowing proper opportunity to put his defence.  In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.  The petitioners are accorded opportunity to lead their evidence before the District Forum. 

 

Announced 27.01.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK