Haryana

StateCommission

A/336/2015

MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAS RAM - Opp.Party(s)

NITESH SINGHI

15 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :            336 of 2015

Date of Institution:           13.04.2015

Date of Decision :            15.09.2015

 

Max Life Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at 11^th Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF, Phase II, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Paras Ram s/o Sh. Hari Chand, aged 61 years, r/o House No.22, Village Tagra Hakimpur, Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      AXIS Bank, 1090/3-A, Bharat Nagar, Kalka, District Panchkula through its Manager.

Respondent -Opposite Party No.2

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Anirudh Kush, Advocate for respondent No.1.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been preferred by Max Life Insurance Company Limited – opposite party No.1 (Insurance Company) against the order dated December 11^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panchkula, whereby, complaint filed by Paras Ram-complainant was accepted directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,07,546/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of death of Gurdev Singh; Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- litigation expenses.

2.      Gurdev Singh (since deceased) brother of complainant purchased insurance policy No.846714293 dated March 07^th, 2011 for Rs.1,07,546/- from the Insurance Company.  He expired on August 07^th, 2013. The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the Insurance Company.  Insurance Company was proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide order dated September 29^th, 2014 observing as under:-

          “Service of OP No.2 is complete.  Counsel for the OP No.2 filed his memo of appearance and seeks adjournment for filing written statement on behalf of OP No.2.  Heard in the interest of justice statement case is adjourned to 17^th October, 2014 for filing written statement on behalf of OP No.2.  As per report of concerned assistant notice to the OP No.1 was issued through registered post on 27^th August, 2014 and the same has not been received back served or unserved.  Receipt is placed on record.  Despite passing 30 days from issuance of notice to the Op No.1 and the same has not been received back served or unserved.  It deemed to be served.  Today case called several times since morning. It is already 3 P.M.  But there is no appearance on behalf of OP No.1.  It seems that OP No.1 is not interested in defending his case.  Hence OP No.1 is proceeded ex parte.”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on September 29^th, 2014, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the Insurance Company, as notice of the complaint not received back served or unserved and more than one month had passed.  Thus, it becomes clear that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the appellant.  Since the Insurance Company was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and as such it could not contest the complaint on merits, it would be in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to contest the complaint on merits.  Learned counsel for the complainant has fairly conceded that complainant has no objection in granting opportunity to the Insurance Company to contest the complaint on merits but subject to the cost. 

5.      In view of above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant before the District Forum. The Insurance Company is accorded opportunity to join the proceedings and parties shall be entitled to lead evidence etc.  The case is remitted to the District Forum, Panchkula. 

6.       The District Forum is directed to issue notice to both the parties and to proceed further in accordance with law.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

 

Announced: 15.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK