By this order we are going to dispose of the petition filed by the present petitioners/OP No 1 and 2  under Section 50 of the Consumers Protection Act 2019 and with order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code for vacating the Ex-party hearing order dated 14.11.2022 passed in CC No 04/2021.

                    The petitioners have stated that the present counsel is their empaneled advocate: On 24.02.2023 two cases i.e. CC No.223/2018 and CC No.03/2017 were listed before this commission. On 24.02.2023 their counsel could not appear before this commission due to personal difficulties. On 25.02.2023 when their counsel search the status of ther above two cases came to know that another case i.e. CC No 4/2021 is also pending before this Commission and taking note to track consignment report submitted by the complainant was pleased to proceed ex-parte on 14.11.2022 against the present petitioners due to their absence and fixed  27.01.2023 for filing of evidence on affidavit in chief band as on  that date complainant failed  to file the same as such fixed next date on 03.03.2023. The  official of the opposite parties after verification informed the counsel that the notice has been found to their office. It is also stated that the name of the erstwhile HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company has been changed to HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. Further stated  that there is no negligence or latches on the part of the petitioners and submitted to vacate the ex-parte order dated 14.11.2022 and to allow them to file their written version.

                    The complainant filed the written objection against the said petition and denied about the non receipt of the notice by the petitioners. It is sated that the notice was duly served upon the applicants on 23.09.2022 and this commission vide order dated 29.09.2022 was pleased not to pass any adverse order against the applicants and fixed 14.11.2022 for appearance of the applicants . As the applicants did not appear on 14.11.2022 as such proceeded ex-parte against the applicants and submitted to dismiss the petition.

                    Heard both sides.

                    Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the complain was filed against the erstwhile HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company and the name of the said company has been changed to HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. The petitioners counsel could come to know about the pendency of this case only on 25.02.2023 when he searched about the status of other two cases and that this commission taking note to take track consignment report submitted by the complainant was pleased to proceed ex-parte on 14.11.2022 against the present petitioners due to their absence. The official of the opposite parties after verification informed the counsel that no notice has been found in their office and submitted  that there is no negligence or latches on the part of the petitioners and submitted to vacate the ex-parte hearing order dated 14.11.2022 and to allow them to contest the case by filing their written statement.

                    On the other hand, Mr. Deka learned counsel, for the opposite party has contended that from the track consignment report it is found that notice was duly served upon the applicants on 23.09.2022 and inspite of that the applicants did not appear and no written version was filed by them within 45 days of the receipt of the notice. So in such a situation this review application has no merit and liable to be dismissed.

                    Mr. Deka has referred the citation 2020 0 AIR (SC)1267 New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd, (2022) 4 SCC 169 Diamond Experts and  another vs United India Insurance Company Ltd and others.

                    We have carefully gone through the record.           

                    In CC No. 04/2021, relying upon the postal track consignment report submitted the counsel for the complainant vide order dated 29.09.2022 held that notice was duly delivered upon the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and on 14.11.2022  passed order for ex-parte  hearing. But no evidence on affidavit as yet submitted by the complainant.

                    From the review application which is supported by affidavit it is found that the name of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd has been changed to HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. In the present case, notice was sent to HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd and not in the name of HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd.

                    Again regarding non receipt of notice by the applicants there is statement that the official of the opposite parties after verification informed the counsel that no notice has been found in their office. Normally, though the online tracking system/ report is sufficient to prove the service of notice but in the present case the name of the applicant insurance company has been changed and there is no any report from the postal department about the name of the person who had received the notice on behalf of the applicants. Though it is the mandate that the written version is toi be submitted within 45 days of the service of notice, but considering the present circumstances of the case this review application is allowed and set aside the ex-parte hearing order date 14.11.2022 passed in CC No  04/2021.

                      This review application is disposed off accordingly No costs.