IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 19.05.2014
RP - 32/14
| - The Branch Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. K-18, Lajpat Nagar – II New Delhi – 110024 - Chairman/Director
Shriram General Insurance Co. E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Both petitioners through its Assistant Manager Mr. Vishal Gupta) | .........Appellant |
VS
| Shri Surender Mohan S/o Late Shri Avtar Singh, R/o 313-C/5, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi | ………...Respondent |
CORAM
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)
1. This Revision filed by the appellant is treated as appeal.
2. In a complaint case bearing No. 555/2013 titled as Surender Mohan vs Shriram General Insurance Co. pending before District Forum – II, Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, Delhi, opposite party (in short OP) had not put his appearance before the District Forum on 04.04.2014.
3. In the present appeal before this Commission, OP/Appellant has prayed for setting aside the orders proceeding against him ex-parte.
4. We have heard the Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself.
5. The version of the Counsel for the appellant/OP is that his proxy counsel was present in the District Forum on 4.4.2014. Complainant was not present. Matter was passed over for taking up at 2.00 p.m. Proxy Counsel for the appellant/OP went to Saket Courts to attend another matter. He came back at 1.15 p.m. and came to know from Court Master that the matter was posted for 2.00 p.m. Matter was not taken up. On his inquiry he was informed that he stood proceeded against ex-parte when the complainant was present in person. Complainant had prayed for an adjournment for filing of rejoinder and his evidence.
6. We do not find any reason for not believing the version of the appellant/OP. Policy of law is to stifle a contest. In such circumstances, a lenient view is required to be taken so as to allow the OP to contest the case. We, therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the ex-parte orders dated 04.04.2014 and remand the case back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, Delhi to decide the case on merits.
7. Copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance and a copy of this order be transmitted to both the parties.
