DR. B. C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01-02-2016, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred as the State Commission) in First Appeal No.213 of 2013, vide which, the State Commission dismissed the appeal against the order dated 20-05-2013 passed by the District Forum, Samastipur in Misc. Case (Restoration) No.50 of 2012, by which, the District Forum had dismissed the restoration petition.

2.       The facts of the case are that consumer complaint No.187 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum, Samastipur on 26-08-2009 against the respondent/OP, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., saying that he was the Business Development Manager of the said insurance company getting a salary of Rs.10,072/-, excluding other service benefits. From the month of November, 2008, monthly salaries were not being paid regularly causing financial crisis to the complainant. The complainant had to raise loans on interest for meeting his personal requirements and compulsory needs. The OPs had also not paid the sum assured towards medical expenses. The consumer complaint was filed seeking directions to the OPs to do the needful and also to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @10% per annum.

3.       The said complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 13-12-2011 of the District Forum, in which it was recorded that the complainant had been absenting from the proceedings regularly, whereas the learned counsel for the OP insurance company was present. The complaint was dismissed for lack of ‘Pairvi’ on the part of the complainant.

4.       The complainant filed miscellaneous application No.50 of 2012, seeking restoration of his consumer complaint before the District Forum. However, the said restoration application was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 20-05-2013. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of Appeal No.213 of 2013 before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, the State Commission found that the restoration case had been rightly dismissed by the District Forum, as it was not maintainable before them in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr., 2011 (9) SCC 541. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.

5.       During hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum should not have dismissed the complaint merely on the ground of appearance of the appellant but they should have discussed the merits of the case as well based on the material available before them.  

6.       The learned counsel for the insurance company, however, stated that the case had been rightly dismissed in default by the District Forum. The application for restoration had also been righty dismissed, keeping in view the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The order passed by the State Commission and the District Forum were in accordance with law and should be maintained.

7.       On examination of the entire facts of the case and consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel before us, it is made out that a number of cases of the same petitioner were dismissed by the District Forum on account of non-prosecution by him. The petitioner filed review application against the said order. A perusal of the order dated 20-05-2013 passed by the District Forum reveals that a large number of cases belonging to this petitioner were disposed of vide that order, saying that the District Forum had no powers to review its own order. The State Commission in their order dated 01-02-2016 have also upheld the order of the District Forum, as stated earlier.

8.       The complainant is stated to be a handicapped person, suffering from several diseases. In the interest of justice, it is felt that the complaint filed by him should be decided by the District Forum on merits and that he should be provided another chance to plead his case before the State Commission. Similar view has already been held by this Commission in some other cases as well,  as for example, in an order passed on 28-03-2017 in RP No.1233 of 2016, a direction has been given to the District Forum to hear the complaint of the petitioner again. This revision petition is, therefore, also allowed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum to hear the consumer complaint on merits, after giving due notice to the concerned parties and then pass their order, after considering all relevant aspects of the case.  

9.       There shall be no order as to costs.