Haryana

StateCommission

A/232/2017

UDEY SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SHEORAN

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    232 of 2017

Date of Institution:  06.03.2017

Date of Decision:    23.06.2017

 

Udey Singh son of Shri Chandgi Ram, resident of Village Dhani Mansukh, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.

 

….Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      State of Haryana, through Collector, District Bhiwani.

 

2.      Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional Office Chandigarh, through its Area Manager, SCO No.64-65, Ground Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

3.      The Loharu Primary Co-operative Agriculture Society Limited, Loharu, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani, through its Manager.

 

…Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                            

 

Present:     Shri Amit Sheoran, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, counsel for the respondent No.2.      

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Udey Singh–complainant against the order dated March 29^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint was dismissed in default and application for restoration of the complaint was dismissed respectively. 

2.      Notice issued to respondent No.1 has been served through Process Serving Agency of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani. Notice was also issued to the respondent No.3 by registered post acknowledgement due for today. Vide Detailed Track Events (copy enclosed) for RH271902715IN whereby notice was issued to respondent No.3, article was delivered to it on 05.05.2017.  Despite service, respondents No.1 and 3 did not appear.       

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that on March 29^th, 2016, the counsel for the complainant was out of station, due to which counsel could not appear on the date fixed and the complaint was dismissed in default. 

4.      The complaint was dismissed in default because the counsel of the complainant did not appear before the District Forum. So, it cannot be said that there was negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint by the complainant. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint. 

5.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set-aside. The complaint is restored to the board of District Forum for adjudication.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on July 12^th, 2017.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

  

 

Announced 23.06.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

D.R.