Haryana

StateCommission

RP/37/2021

HDFC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM KISHAN GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

S.C. THATAI

20 Dec 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                                            Revision Petition No.37 of 2021

Date of the Institution:13.12.2021

                                                    Date of Decision:20.12.2021

 

1.      HDFC life insurance company Ltd. (formerly known as HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.), Branch Office 1^st Floor    above Suzuki Showroom, Shakuntla Building, Main Delhi Rohtak Road, Rohtak-124001.

2.      HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. (formerly known as HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.), Regd. Office Raman House, HT Parekh Marg, 169 Back bay Reclamation Church Gate, Mumbai-400020.

          Presently filed by HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd., First & Second Floor, SCO No.149-151, Sector-43-B, Chandigarh through Shri Arpit Higgins, Sr. Manager (Legal).

                                                                                       .…. Revisionists.

Versus

1.      Ram Kishan Gupta S/o Shri Ram Pat R/o 3-A, Opposite hindu High School Model Town, Rewari.

2.      HDFC Banck Ltd. Branch at Model Town, Rewari District Rewari (Already given up by the complainant/DecreeHolder in execution).

                                        .….contesting Respondents.

 

CORAM:    Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                  

Present:-    Shri S.C.Thatai, counsel for the revisionists. 

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   As per order dated 27.09.2021 contained in letter No.1578, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

 2.               Petitioners are in revision petition for issuance of directions to learned District Commission, Rewari  to first decided the objections filed on 16.11.2018 by the respondent Company and against the order dated 10.01.2020 vide which the bailable warrants issued against the Judgment Debtor No.1 in EA No.135 of 2017.                                                                                         

3.                The only contentions which has been raised by learned counsel for the revisionists  that in spite of the fact that the revisionist or the Judgment Debtors  before the learned District Commission, Rewari, the entire payment has already been made. However, an objection was filed, which is still pending which has not been adjudicated. But the learned district Commission has obtained summons against Judgment Debtor No.1 which happens to be the incumbent of the Branch Office, Rewari has been summoned by issuance of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with one surety in the like amount  on 10.01.2020. Since, the warrants of arrest could not be executed and again on 04.02.2020, the bailable warrants were again directed to be issued and thereafter on account of Covid-19 the warrants of arrest have not been issued afresh.  The limited period has been made by learned counsel for the revisionists that during the pendency of the objections which has been filed by the Judgment Debtor before the learned District Commission, Rewari, the execution of the bailabe warrants qua Judgment Debtor No.1 may be stayed.

4.                In view of the stated facts and since the objections petition has been entertained by the learned District Commission, Rewari, which was incumbent for the learned District Commission to decide the objection petition and then could have been followed  the coercive method by issuance of bailable warrants against the Judgment Debtor No.1. Hence, the operation of the bailable warrants issued by the learned District Commission Rewari would remain stayed and in fact stands recalled till further orders and would be kept in abeyance till decision of the objection petition which have been filed by the revisionists.

5.                Since, a limited prayer has been made by the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the revisionists and bailbale warrants have been kept in abeyance, there is not purpose to continue with the present revision petition and accordingly the revision petition stands disposed off and putting the revisionist at liberty that if any point of time the circumstance arise he could avail the similar kind of relief by resorting the legal course. File be consigned to the record room.

 

December 20th, 2021                                                                        Ram Singh Chaudhary

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl. Bench  

J.Y.