Delhi

StateCommission

RP/104/2018

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MURARI LAL - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPA CHACKO

17 Sep 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Revision Petition No.104/2018

(Arising out of the order dated 03.08.2018 passed in Complaint Case No.343/2018 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(North West), Delhi

 

 

Royal Sundaram General Finance Co. Ltd.                                 … Petitioner

 

Versus

 

Mr. Murari Lal                                                                        … Respondent

 

 

BEFORE:

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

For the Petitioner:	Mr. James M., Counsel for the Petitioner
For the Respondent

 

Dated: 17^th September, 2018

 

ORDER

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

                 By way of this petition prayer is made for recalling of the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North West) Delhi in CC No.343/2018 whereby the petitioner/OP has been proceeded ex-parte. The aforesaid order reads as under:

 

“03.08.2018

Pr.: Counsel for Complainant.

      None for OP.

 

Counsel for complainant filed proof of service. As per track report dt. 27.07.18 OP has served on both the address of OP.

 

None has appeared on behalf of OP. As such OP proceeded ex-parte.

 

To come up for filing of evidence on 28.09.18.”

 

 

                 The reasoning given for non-appearance on the aforesaid date is as under:

“3.     That the notice dated 07.06.2018 was dispatched vide speed post No.ED794415215 IN only on 25.07.2018, just a few days before the date of hearing in the matter. It was delivered only on Saturday, 28.07.2018 to the opposite party.

 

4.      That 28^th was Saturday and no office staff was present. That 29^th Sunday was a holiday. That inadvertently, the notice/papers of the case got mislaid with other papers at the reception counter. It was traced on 09.08.2018. The counsel at Delhi was immediately in formed on phone about this case on 09.08.2018 and was requested to inspect the court file. The counsel inspected the file on 13.08.2018 and came to know that the opposite party/petitioner has been proceeded ex-parte. The knowledge of this order was received by the petitioner only on 13.08.2018 and the certified copy of the order was obtained on 13.08.2018. The original notice is enclosed as Annexure P-3.

 

5.      That the petitioner was not served proper notice as contemplated by Regulation 10 of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005. Regulation 10 of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 provides as under:

 

10.    Issue of notice.-(1) Whenever the Consumer Forum directs the issuance of a notice in respect of a complaint, appeal or revision petition, as the case may be, to the opposite party(ies) /respondent(s), ordinarily such notice shall be issued for a period of 30 days and depending upon the circumstances of each case even for less than 30 days.

 

    (2) When there is a question of raising presumption of service, 30 days notice shall be required.

 

6.      That the petitioner/opposite party was not given any proper notice for the date of 03.08.2018 before the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Shalimar Bagh.

 

 

                 After going through the reasoning given, we find that proper notice of 30 days was not served upon the petitioner/OP and petitioner/OP was not given 30 days time for filing written statement. However, we may mention that when notice was admittedly served on the petitioner/OP on 28.07.2018 atleast some office of petitioner/OP ought to have appeared before the District Forum and appraise the position.

                 In the interest of justice we accept this petition, set aside the impugned order subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent/complainant.

                 We may mention that to cut short further delay in the matter, we have not issued notice to the respondent/complainant as 30 days clear notice was not given by the Ld. District Forum.

                 It is stated that the matter is now listed before the District Forum on 28.09.2018. On the said date the petitioner/OP shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent /complainant and shall also file its written statement on the said date. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

                 Petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

                 A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rule and also to the concerned District Forum. Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.

                 A copy of this order be also given dasti.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri