Haryana

StateCommission

RP/14/2017

BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROSHNI - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision petition No.14   of 2017

 Date of Institution:14.02.2017

  Date  of  Decision:15.02.2017

 

1.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at SCO No.9-10, Second Floor, Sector 25, Panipat through Ms. Aakriti Manocha, Deputy Manager-Legal.

2.      Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1, 6^th Floor, Claims Department, G-Corp Tech Park, Kasarvadvali Ghodbunder Road, thane West, Mumbai through Ms. Aakriti Manocha, Deputy Manager-Legal.

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

Roshni W/o deceased Sh. Parmod Kumar R/o village Chulkana, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat (Haryana).

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.S.C.Thatai, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          This revision has been filed against the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) vide which request of the revisionist to summon Tirath Purohit, Bharti Bhawan (Durga Bhawan) Upper Road, Haridwar was declined.

2.                Arguments heard. File perused.

3.                It is opined by this Commission in Revision Petition No.39 of 2016 titled as M/s Pareena Infrastructure Vs. Ms. Nell Acharya decided on 01.07.2016 that the matter can be remanded even without issuing notice to other party. In the present case no complicated question is involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by the District Forum.  More so Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J.Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi 2002 (3) CPJ 8 and  Hon’ble National Commission in Regency Aqua-Electro and Motelresorts Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 2016  (2) CLT 96 have opined that ordinarily even if evidence is to be recorded the matter should not be remitted back and the concerned fora should decide the case on merits.

4.               It is alleged by complainant that deceased life assured (DLA) expired on 13.06.2014, whereas revisionist has alleged that he expired on 26.05.2014 and to prove that fact they want to summon Tirath Purohit, Bharti Bhawan (Durga Bhawan) Upper Road, from Haridwar. Learned District Forum has opined about relevancy of this evidence, qua the evidence already led by the complainant, but, it is not to be decided at this stage. It is to be seen at the final stage that which evidence is plausible or reliable. In these circumstances impugned order dated 17.01.2017 is set aside.  Learned District Forum is directed to give an opportunity to opposite parties/revisionist to lead evidence. 

5.      Parties are directed to appear before the District forum, Panipat on 01.03.2017.

February 15th, 2017        Urvashi Agnihotri            R.K.Bishnoi,                                                          Member                          Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                    Addl.Bench           

S.K.