NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION filed a consumer case on 07 Mar 2018 against SH. ISHWAR & ANOTHER in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/1163/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Mar 2018.
Delhi
StateCommission
A/1163/2014
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Complainant(s)
Versus
SH. ISHWAR & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)
ASHUTOSH GUPTA
07 Mar 2018
ORDER
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 07.03.2018
First Appeal No.1163/2014
(Arising out of the order dated 16.12.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.545/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), New Delhi)
North Delhi Municipal Corporaation,
Through its Commissioner,
S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi.
…Appellant
Versus
Shri Ishwar,
S/o Late Sochand,
R/o H.No.160, MCD Colony,
Samaypur Badli, Delhi – 110042.
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch No.11-C, F-19, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi – 110001.
….Respondents
CORAM
Justice Veena Birbal, President
Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) wherein challenge is made to order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI) (in short the District Forum) in CC No.545/2012 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed and appellant/OP has been directed as under:
“In these circumstances, we hold OP 2 guilty of deficiency and award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency and we also award Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses.”
Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by respondent No.1 herein i.e. the complainant before District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of respondent No.2/OP No.1 in not paying the maturity amount of Rs.25,000/- in respect of policy bearing No.111703176 commencing from February, 1997 on monthly premium of Rs.182/- per month. Respondent No.1/complainant had alleged that the premium for the aforesaid policy was to be deducted from his salary by the appellant/OP No.2. It was alleged that after retirement when the policy amount was not given to him he was told by respondent No.2/OP No.1 that appellant/OP No.2 had not paid the premium since April 1997 due to which the policy had lapsed.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant/OP No.1 was ex-parte before the Ld. District Forum.
Counsel for appellant/OP No.1 submits that they were not served before the District Forum. It is stated that the impugned order was passed on 16.12.2013 and appellant/OP No.1 had come to know about passing of the aforesaid order only on 06.12.2014 in pending execution petition bearing No.Ex.23/2014 when police officials had reached the office of the appellant for execution of the bailable warrants issued in the execution petition vide order dated 24.12.2014. It is stated that the appellant/OP No.2 was never served before the District Forum as old address of the appellant/OP No.2 was not mentioned in the complaint case. It is also stated that after trifurcation on 29.12.2011 the office of the appellant/OP No.2 was shifted from Town Hall, Chandni Chowk to SPM, Civic Centre, New Delhi whereas in the complaint case fresh address was not given.
It is also stated that the appellant/OP No.2 has good case on merits in as much as the respondent No.1/complainant has alleged that his premium was not paid by the appellant/OP No.2 since February 1997, however, respondent No.1/complainant had retired from service on 31.01.2010. He has never raised his grievance before that and the claim was filed before the District Forum only after retirement making allegations of non-payment of premium by the appellant/OP No.2. It is contended that respondent No.1/complainant was getting his salary regularly. He has never pointed non-payment of premium prior to filing of the complaint case. It is contended that there was fault on his part.
Respondent No.1/complainant has not been appearing in the matter despite being served.
Perusal of the impugned order shows no directions have been issued against the respondent No.2/OP No.1.
We have considered the submissions made and perused the entire record of the District Forum.
We have perused the record of District Forum. Perusal of the record shows that Ld. District Forum has not cared to see whether appellant/OP No.2 was served before District Forum or not. There is no service report of appellant/OP No.2 on record. There is nothing on record as in what manner notices were sent to appellant/OP No.2. As per affidavit of appellant/OP No.2 its office was shifted and respondent No.1/complainant never brought its fresh address on record. The Ld. District Forum has proceeded in the matter without there being any service on appellant/OP No.2.
In view of above discussion we find that the matter has been decided by the Ld. District Forum without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant/OP No.2. In these circumstances, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the District Forum for deciding it afresh.
Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 03.05.2018. On the said date, appellant/OP No.2 shall file its written statement and thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
In case respondent No.1/complainant does not appear before the District Forum on the aforesaid date, the District Forum shall issue fresh notice to him.
It is clarified that nothing stated herein above shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge as per Rule and also to the concerned District Forum. Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room. Record of the District Forum be also sent to the concerned District Forum forthwith.
(Justice Veena Birbal)
President
(Salma Noor)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.