Haryana

StateCommission

A/1259/2017

SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREMPAL BATTERY HOUSE AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                               First Appeal No.1259 of 2017                                                   Date of Institution: 23.10.2017

Date of Decision: 25.01.2019

 

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, Act No.21 of 1976 having its Head Office, at plot No.1, Sector-3, Rohtak (Hr) and having its branches at different places including one at Khandsa in Distt. Gurgaon (HR) through its constituted attorney/Sr. Manager Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Prempal Battery House, NH-8, Naharpur Ruppa Chowk, Opposite Anaj Mandi, Near Maha Laxmi Dharam Kanta, 36 Mile Stone,Gurgaon through its proprietor Sh.Jaswant Singh s/o Sh. Sh.Mukhtyar Singh

2.      United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office at SCO 17-18, First Floor, HUDA Shopping Complex, Sector-7, Gurgaon through its Branch Manager.

                   …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:              Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for appellant.

                             Mr.Akshat Mittal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                    Mr. R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

          Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that  complainant was having proprietor firm and running the business of retail marketing of Exide Brand of Batteries and inverters.  It was having over draft facility with the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1  obtained insurance policy in the name of complainant from O.P.No.2 from 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010. In the intervening night of 07/08.12.2010 a theft took place in the shop of complainant.  FIR was registered on 08.12.2010.  Intimation was given to the O.P. No.2.  Claim of Rs.8,83,892/- was lodged with the O.P.No.2. Surveyor  was  appointed. However, the O.P. No.2 rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 08.10.2012.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the complainant.

3.      O.P. No.1 was proceeded ex parte before the learned District Forum .

4.      O.P.No.2. filed  separate reply controverting its averments.  O.P.No.2.  alleged that  O.P.No.1 has gave the address of the complainant as 31/1 Hans Enclave Gurgaon wrongly instead of Prem Pal Battery House, NH-8, Naharpur Ruppa Chowk, Opposite Anaj Mandi, Near Maha Luxmi Dharam Kanta,Gurgaon through its proprietor Sh.Jaswant Singh.  Upon intimation, surveyor was appointed,  who revealed that the address of the insured premises was not correct.  The claim of the complainant was rejected  vide letter dated 08.10.2012. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.2. 

5.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 04.09.2017 and directed the O.P. No.1 to reimburse the amount to the tune of Rs.8,83,893/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Sikander Bakshi, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Akshat Mittal, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the respondent No.2. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the  learned District Forum  has not given any chance  to file the reply. The learned District forum was proceeded ex parte on the first date of appearance.

9.       Since the O.P.No.1 was proceeded ex parte on the first date of hearing by the learned District, which is arbitrarily unjustified. Hence in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated  04.09.2017 is set aside for all intents and purposes subject to the payment of Rs.40,000/- as costs. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum, Gurgaon, to decided the complaint in accordance with law and on merits after affording an opportunity to the O.P.No.1-appellant to file reply.

10.    Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Gurgaon on 26.03.2019.

January 25th, 2019                        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.