Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1087/2014

K.S.Rajashekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assuance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Raviprakash

04 Aug 2021

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/1087/2014
( Date of Filing : 25 Aug 2014 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 24/07/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/17/2014 of District Kodagu)
 
1. K.S.Rajashekar
S/o Satyanarayana Rao, Aged about 54 years, M/s Mahalaxmi Bhandar, B.M.Road, Kushalnagar, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District-571234.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The New India Assuance Co Ltd.,
Branch Office-672402, Coffee Krupa Building, M.G.Road, Madikeri, Kodagu District, Rep by its Senior Manager.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 04 Aug 2021
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2021

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1087/2014

Sri K.S. Rajashekar,

Aged about 54 years,

S/o Satyanarayana Rao,

M/s Mahalaxmi Bhandar,

B.M. Road, Kushalnagar,

Somwarpet Taluk,

Kodagu District 571 234.

 

(By Sri S.R. Raviprakash)

 

……Appellant/s

 

V/s

The New India Assurance

Co., Ltd.,

Branch Office – 672402,

Coffee Krupa Building,

M.G. Road, Madikeri,

Kodagu District,

Rep. by its Senior Manager.

 

(By Sri V. Subramani)

 

…Respondent/s

 

ORDER

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.24.07.2014 passed in CC.No.17/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kodagu at Madikeri has dismissed the complaint for default.

2.      The appellant submits that he filed a complaint before the District Commission for reimbursement of medical expenses from the Opposite Party by virtue of the mediclaim policy towards his mother’s hospitalization charges who took treatment at hospital and died subsequently on 07.08.2013.  The case was admitted and listed for hearing on 24.07.2014.  In the meantime, the complainant went to Manasa Sarovar pilgrimage on 30.06.2014 and he returned back only on 13.07.2014.  He reached his native place Kushalnagar on 15.07.2014 subsequently, he fell ill due to travelling and doctor has advised 10 days bed rest from 15.07.2014 to 25.07.2014.  Such being the case, the case was listed on 24.07.2013 and he was not present before the District Commission and the District Commission had dismissed the complaint for default.  The non-appearance of the complainant before the District Commission, is not intentional, but, for bonafide reason.  Infact the complainant tried to reach the District Commission from his native place, but, the road was blocked due to fall of tree in the middle of the road and he could not reach the court well within time.  By that time when he reached the Commission, the case was called out and dismissed the complaint for default.  Hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and to restore the complaint for trial as he got good case to urge the allegations made in the complaint.

3.      Heard the arguments.

4.      On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the District Commission has dismissed the complaint as the complainant was not present before the District Commission for which the appellant/complainant had narrated that he had been to Manasa Sarovar from 13.07.2014 to 15.07.2014.  Subsequently, he fell ill and took bed rest at his residence and was not able to represent the case and also stated that he tried to appear before the Commission below, but, due to unavoidable circumstances like fall of tree in the middle of the road, he was not able to appear and submits that non-appearance before the District Commission is for bonafide reason.  The reasons narrated in the memorandum of appeal is not acceptable as because the complainant has not made any efforts on the same day i.e. 24.07.2014 to represent the complaint by filing any memo or application for restoration of the complaint as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and at the same time, the complainant had not produced any materials before this Commission to show that as soon as he arrived to his native from pilgrimage Manasa Srovar, he fell ill health.  In the absence of any such materials, we cannot accept the averment in the appeal.  It is the foremost duty of the complainant to appear on regular hearing date before the Commission after filing the complaint, but, he had not do so.  Hence, it is clearly negligence on the part of the complainant in not appearing before the District Commission.  As such, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint for default.  Accordingly, there are no merits in the appeal.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. 

Forward free copies to both parties.

 

      Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                          JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

KCS*

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.