Delhi

StateCommission

RP/27/2014

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RACHNA BANSAL - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
Revision Petition No. RP/27/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, OPP. SBI, NEW DELHI-110020.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. RACHNA BANSAL
R/O 264, RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI-34.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION :DELHI

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

 

                         Date of Decision: 23.05.2014

                                    

RP – 27/2014

 

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

60, Okhla Industrial Estate,

Phase-III, Opp. SBI,

New Delhi-110020.

.....Appellant

Vs

Ms. Rachna Bansal @ Rachna Jain,

W/o Shri Himanshu Jain,

R/o 264, Rajdhani Enclave,

Pitampura, Delhi-34.

.....Respondent

 

CORAM

 

Salma Noor, Presiding Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

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

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

SALMA NOOR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.    This revision petition may be treated as an appeal.

2.   In a complaint case bearing No.866/2013 Rachna Bansal vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed before District Forum-VI (Distt. New Delhi), M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, 11.3.2014 was fixed for appearance of the OP when the OP did not appear and the Forum ordered to proceed ex-parte against the OP. 

 

3.   That is what brings the Appellant/OP in appeal before    this Commission for setting aside the said ex-parte order. 

 

4.   We have heard Shri Anuj Kumar Chauhan, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the respondent.

 

5.   The version of the appellant/OP for his non appearance on 11.3.2014 is that he did not receive the summon sent by the registry of the Ld. District Forum. Therefore, he could not appear before the District Forum, hence the default occurred. There is no plausible reason to disbelieve or not to rely and act upon this version of the appellant.  Besides this, it has always been the consistent policy of the courts to allow a little latitude, so that the parties may contest the case on merits, and an effective order may be passed.  Order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the District Forum against the appellant/OP is set aside with the direction to the District Forum that they will allow the appellant/OP to file the WS and evidence and decide the case after hearing both the parties.  The appellant is directed to appear, through his counsel, before the District Forum-VI (Distt. New Delhi), M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in this case on 15.7.14.

 

6.   Copy of this order be sent to District Forum-VI (Distt. New Delhi), M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance.

 

 

                          

 

 

 

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.