Haryana

StateCommission

RP/20/2016

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RAJENDER YADAV

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                             

                                               

Revision Petition No  :          20 of 2016

Date of Institution:        17.02.2016

Date of Decision :         11.03.2016

 

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Jacobpura, Gurgaon, through its Deputy Manager/Divisional Manager.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

1.      Sunder Singh son of late Sh. Dhanpal, resident of House No.850/13, Vijay Park, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

2.      Manager, M/s Sunderam Finance Limited, SCO 35-36, First Floor, Sector 12A, Commercial Opposite to BSNL Telephone Exchange, Old Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

Respondent-Opposite Party No. 2

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Present:               Mr. Aman Vashisht, Advocate for petitioner.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (petitioner herein) has filed the present revision petition against the order dated December 07^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Divisional Office of the petitioner informed its counsel Sh. Rajender Yadav to appear before the District Forum on December 07^th, 2015.  Inadvertently, he noted the date December 17^th, 2015 and as such, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be given to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is March 21^st, 2016.

4.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the order dated December 07^th, 2015 is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.3000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

6.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.  In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur(CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on March 21^st, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 11.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK