BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA No. 175 OF 2015 AGAINST CC No.33 OF 2014

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-WARANGAL

  Between :

  Smt. Dondapati Sunitha,  

  W/o. Late Raji Reddy,

  Aged : 47 years, Occ: Housewife,

  R/o. Nacharam Village, Malhar Mandal,

  Karimnagar District,

  (Presently residing at Bhupalpally V & M,

   Warangal District.                                                    …Appellant / Complainant

  AND :

  The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

  Rep. by its Branch Manager, 

  Branch Office at H.No.1-7-690, First Floor,

  Layola Arcade, Subedari,

  Hanamkonda, Warangal District.                     …Respondent / Opposite Party                                                   

Counsel for the Appellant                 :    M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates                                         

Counsel for the Respondent           :   Sri M.V.R. Suresh

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla        …      President

&

Sri Patil Vithal Rao  …                  Member

Wednesday, the Second day of November

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).

                                                         ***

          Having aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2015 in C.C.No.33/2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Warangal (hereinafter called as the “District Forum”), the appellant has come up with the present appeal under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.       The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C.No.33/2014 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal.  For the sake of convenience they will be referred to as arrayed in the said case.

3.       The complainant had filed C.C.no.33/2014 under Section 12 of Act, 1986, claiming the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, covered by life insurance policy issued by the opposite party infavour of her late husband, D.Raji Reddy who died on 25.07.2012 in a road accident, being his nominee.  The opposite party had filed written version in the case and resisted her claim.  When the case was posted for enquiry and was being adjourned from time to time from 18.09.2014 till 14.08.2015, the complainant did not file her evidence affidavit and was also not represented by her counsel.  Therefore, on 14.08.2015 the learned District Forum passed the order as follows:

          “Complainant and his counsel called absent.  No representation is made.  The stage for filing Affidavit by complainant is coming from 18.09.2014 to till today, though no filed.  Hence this C.C. is dismissed for default.”

4.       The contention of the appellant in the present appeal, in brief, is that as she was suffering with fever at her village, she could not appear before the District Forum on the date of hearing and that as there was also no representation on her behalf by the counsel, the impugned order was passed even without considering the fact that she is a widow of the deceased insured and that claimed the amount of his insurance policy but the opposite party repudiated the same for no valid reason.  She has further contended that if she is not permitted to contest the case on merits before the District Forum by allowing the present appeal, she would be put to irreparable loss and injury.  For these reasons she has prayed to allow the appeal.   

5.         Heard both the learned counsel for the parties to the appeal.

6.        Now the point for consideration is that:-

      Whether the impugned order is erroneous and suffers with any infirmity, irregularity or illegality and that as such liable to be set-aside?

7. Point:- The complainant, who is the appellant herein, is a widow of the insured, late D.Raji Reddy who died in a road accident on 25.07.2012.  Being nominee of the insurance policy, she made a claim for the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the insurer, the respondent herein.  But when her claim was repudiated, she filed C.C.no.33/2014 before the District Forum by engaging an advocate but unfortunately the same was dismissed for default.

8.       It is to be noted that, the complainant is a rustic woman hailing from a tiny village of Warangal district and also a piteous and hapless widow.  Unfortunately, she was not being represented by her counsel before the District Forum when the case was posted for enquiry and was being adjourned from time to time.  She has specifically contended that, due to her ill-health, on account of fever, she could not attend the District Forum on 18.09.2014 and thereafter, to give evidence.  The learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts.  However, taking into consideration the proceedings before the District Forum in the case and in the given set of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that, an opportunity should be given to the complainant to contest her claim on merits by giving further opportunity reasonably.  It is also a settled proposition of law that for the fault of an advocate, a party should not be made to suffer.  In this view of the matter, we hold that the appeal is fit to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.        

9.       The point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant.

10.     In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order but in the circumstances without costs.  Both the parties shall present before the District Forum on 01.12.2016 to proceed with the case and the District Forum shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

PRESIDENT    MEMBER 

Dt. 02.11.2016