ORAL ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          Appellant’s daughter – Smt. Ruchita Prasad, who is also Appellant’s power-of-attorney holder and the Appellant in sister Appeal No.FA/13/115 is present.  Respondent No.1 – Aviva Insurance Company Ltd., is duly served at their registered address at New Delhi.  Aviva Life Insurance Company being a public limited company, service of notice on its registered address is proper and, therefore, postal envelope containing notice issued to its address at Mumbai even if returned unserved, in consequence one has to hold that the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 which are one and the same legal juristic person, are duly served, but absent.  Respondent No.3 – Canara Bank, is duly served with notice after admission issued by this Commission under RPAD on 29/6/2013 as per delivery report downloaded from the website ‘India Post’.  Today Respondent No.3 is absent.  Respondent No.4 – Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority is duly served with notice as per postal acknowledgement receipt on the record.  However, Respondent No.4 is absent today.  Under these circumstances the appeal to proceed in absence of the Respondents.

[2]     Heard and also perused the record including the written reply filed by the Respondent No.4 – Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority.

[3]     Appeal takes an exception to the order dated 10/05/2013 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.71 of 2012, Mrs. Rita Prasad Vs.  The Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd.  By the said impugned order, the consumer complaint stood dismissed for default.  Impugned order passed by the Forum did not disposed off the complaint on merit.  Factual events are mentioned in the appeal memo, particularly in paragraph (04) to (10) thereof.  We have carefully considered those events and find that dismissal for default due to absence needs to be set aside.  However, since the consumer complaint itself is misconceived against the Respondent/Opponent No.4 – Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority, since there is no relationship of a ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the Appellant/Complainant and the Respondent/Opponent No.4.  Thus, the impugned order is set aside only as against the Respondents/Opponents Nos.1 to 3 for de-novo hearing as per law.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

ORDER

Appeal is partly allowed.

Impugned order dated 10^th May, 2013 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.71 of 2012 is hereby set aside only to the extent it relates to the Opponent - The Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. and the Opponent - Canara Bank and the consumer complaint as against these two Opponents is remitted back to the Forum for fresh trial according to law.

Parties shall appear before the Forum on 11^th November, 2013.  In case the Respondents/Opponents fail to appear before the Forum on the said date, on appearance of the Appellant/Complainant, notice of next date fixed for hearing shall be issued to the Respondents/Opponents through Forum by RPAD at the cost of the Appellant/Complainant.

No order as to costs.

Pronounced and dictated on 06^th September, 2013