Delhi

StateCommission

RP/156/2016

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDER KUMAR ASTHANA & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT KUMAR MAIHAN

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                                Date of Decision: 22.12.2016    

 

Revision Petition No. 156/2016

 

(Arising out of the order dated 27.04.16 passed in Complaint Case No.591/2013 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum(X), Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi.)

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

7^th  Floor, 1, DLF Tower,

Shivaji Marg, Delhi.

 

……Petitioner

 

Versus

Narender Kumar Asthana,

430 (Type-IV),

Laxmi Bai Nagar,

New Delhi-110023.

   …...Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1. This is a petition  challenging order dated 27.4.16 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (X), Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi (in short, the District Forum’) in CC No.591/13.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/OP-1.   The petitioner/OP-1 did not file written statement within 45 days from the date of the filing of the complaint.  Taking note of non-filing the same within the requisite period, the Ld. District Forum vide order dated 27.4.16 struck off the defense of the petitioner/OP-1.  Thereupon the petitioner/OP-1 had moved an application for placing on record the evidence by way of affidavit.  The District Forum refused to take the evidence on record and passed the following order:

“27.04.2016

 

Present complainant in person.

 

Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2.

 

CE filed, copy given to OPs.  RE filed by OP-2, copy given to complainant.  OP-1 wants to file his evidence on the record.  He has taken me through section 13(2) of CPA to say that even without filing WS, he can file the evidence.  I have gone through section 13(2) of CPA.  This is not the spirit of the section.  There is no question of taking evidence when his right to file WS is closed.  Evidence cannot be taken on record.  Put up for F/P for 05.9.16.”

  

3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present petition is filed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/OP-1 has submitted that the Ld. District Forum ought to have allowed the petitioner/OP to place on record its evidence under Section 13(2) of the Act.  It is submitted that District Forum committed grave error of law in not taking the evidence of petitioner/OP-1 by way of affidavit on record.
5. Respondent/complainant has argued that there is no error in the order passed and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The parties have been heard.  It is the own case of the petitioner/OP-1 that the written statement was not filed within the period of 30 days as well as within further extended period of 15 days and the defense was struck off by the Ld. District Forum vide order dated 27.4.16.  The said order is not challenged by petitioner/OP-1 and has become final.  When the defense of petitioner/OP has been struck down, the petitioner/OP-1 cannot be allowed to lead its own evidence by filing affidavit to substantiate its own case.  The petitioner/OP, if permitted by the Ld. District Forum, can be allowed its right of cross examination for demonstrating before the Commission that the witnesses of respondent/complainant are not speaking the truth or that the evidence led is not sufficient to prove his case.  Reliance is placed on the judgement of Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo, 1988 SCR Supl.(3) 333. The petitioner/OP can also file written arguments.
7. Since the petitioner/OP has not denied or disputed the allegations contained in the complaint as no WS is filed by it, it cannot be allowed to place its evidence under Section 13(2) of the Act as has been contended.   
8. In view of the above discussion, no jurisdictional error or irregularity is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission.
9. The revision petition stands dismissed.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.  Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President