NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3466/2016

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

MS. ANJALLI BANSALL

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2016
 
(Against the Order dated 19/09/2016 in Appeal No. 1272/2014 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
UNIT NO. DTJ-415, 4TH FLOOR, DLF TOWER-B, JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE
NEW DELHI-110025
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. RAJ KUMAR
S/O. SH. DEEN DAYAL, R/O. NO. 1317, STREET NO. 7, 6TH CROSING CIRCULAR ROAD FAZILKA, ABOHAR, TEHSIL ABOHAR,
DISTRICT-FAZILKA
PUNJAB
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Ms. Anjalli Bansall, Advocate
For the Respondent :
For the Respondent No. 1
:
:
In person
For the Respondent No. 2
:
NEMO

Dated : 17 Oct 2017
ORDER

 

DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1.      This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.9.2016 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandingarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the appeal of the appellant/OP was dismissed in default.

 2.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  None was present for respondent No. 2-Axis Bank despite service.  Accordingly, respondent No. 2 was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

3.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the counsel could not be present in the State Commission on 19.9.2016, when the case was dismissed in default, because the said counsel was in another court at that time. 

4       The learned counsel stated that the State Commission had adjourned the matter due to heavy pendency on three earlier occasions.  The affidavit of the counsel before the State Commission has also been filed. 

 

5       We have perused the material on record.  It is stated in the order of the State Commission that the counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company failed to appear before the State Commission on the previous dates, i.e., on 18.01.2016 and 30.05.2016 as well.  On the date of the impugned order, i.e., 19.09.2016, the said counsel is stated to be busy with some other matter before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  It was, however, his duty to send due intimation to the State Commission to that effect, or to have sought adjournment on that date.  In the interest of justice, however, we do feel that the matter should be adjudicated on merits and the Petitioner Insurance Company should be given another chance to plead their case before the State Commission.  This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside, subject to the condition that a cost of ₹20,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner Insurance Company to the complainant within four weeks from today.  The matter is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the appeal afresh.  The parties have been directed to appear before the State Commission on 11.12.2017. 

6.      It is made clear, however, that if the cost is not deposited within the period stipulated, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically and no further action shall be required to be taken by the State Commission. 

 
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
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.