HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 124-125, 1^stnd

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

1.Paramjit Singh, resident of House No.2414, BSNL Society, Sector 50, U.T. Chandigarh.

2.Jashan Brar, resident of House No. 452, Sector 46-A, U.T. Chandigarh.

 ....Respondents No.1 and 2/complainants

3.Swami Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.72, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh, through its Director(Service dispensed with vide order dated 05.08.2013).

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“We accordingly dispose off this complaint, with a direction to the Complainant to submit the relevant application/ papers required by the Opposite Party No.1 to transfer the insurance policy in his name. Thereafter, all papers needed to be signed/filed for sanction/ approval of insurance claim should also be signed by the Complainant(s). After the said application & claim papers have been received from the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 should release the payment to Complainant No.1. against the amount incurred on the repair of the car, in terms of his entitlement, as per the terms of policy.

The transfer of the insurance policy be made by the Opposite Party No.1 forthwith, and the amount due as per the policy, be paid to the Complainant, within 45 days of receipt of the application for claim from the Complainant.

Opposite Party No.1 will also pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation”.

2.           

3.           

4.           

5.            the date of repudiation of claim; pay Rs.1 lac, as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/-.

6.           

7.           

8.           

9.            

10.        

11.        

12.         

13.            

14.            

15.             

16.             It is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, by affording an opportunity to the parties of putting forth their version and leading evidence. When the hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the hand-maid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. In our considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the order of the District Forum, deserves to be set aside, and the complaint is required to be remanded back to it, for fresh decision, in accordance with law.

17.             

18.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The order impugned is set aside. The case is remanded back, to the District Forum, with a direction to afford an opportunity, to Opposite Party No.1/appellant, to submit its written version, and lead evidence, and, thereafter, permit 

19.        

20.        

21.        

22.        

Pronounced.

October 22, 2013                                              [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.334 of 2013)

Argued by:Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate alongwith Sh.             

Dated the 22^nd

ORDER

2.           

3.           

4.           

5.           

6.           

7.           

8.             

9.           

10.        

11.        

Sd/-                                              

DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.))

PRESIDENT