Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member Heard Mr.Vinod Sharma, Learned Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06/04/2011 in consumer complaint No.13/2008 (Karan Singh Sharma V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.), passed by District Forum, South Mumbai, thereby dismissing the consumer complaint for default. 3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal stating that his Advocate was late by about 30 minutes when the matter was called out by the District Forum for hearing and his Advocate later on appeared and submitted written request stating therein that appellant/complainant is a senior citizen and the above matter was kept for filing rejoinder and the arguments. Advocate requested the Learned District Forum to restore the matter for hearing. 4. We have perused the record. District Forum dismissed the complaint for default on the part of appellant/complainant. Learned Advocate for the appellant/complainant was not present even on the earlier dates since 15/02/2011 and the appellant/complainant also failed to file written arguments on the given date. Therefore, complaint came to be dismissed for default on the part of appellant/complainant. Application submitted in the later part of the day on the date of hearing before the District Forum, did not specify any reason for not attending the matter when called out for hearing. It only states that complainant/appellant is a senior citizen and no other ground is made out as to why Learned Advocate or appellant/complainant himself remained absent at the time of hearing of the matter. District Forum rejected the request stating that when the matter was called out complainant or his Advocate was absent. Complainant was also absent on the date of earlier hearing without assigning any reason. Application for restoration was not supported by any affidavit and therefore, request for restoration of complaint was rejected on the same day i.e. 06/04/2011. 5. The grounds made out in the application by the appellant/complainant were not sufficient to consider the request. Moreover, since the dismissal of complaint for default is a final order and restoration thereof is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum in view of judgement of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.4307/2007 in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. V/s. Achyut Kashinath Karekar. However, on perusal of the file, it is seen that it is an insurance claim for lost of vehicle pending before the opponent/Insurance Company. Though at this stage, we are not going into merit of the claim of the appellant/complainant, but it will be in the interest of justice to give fair trial in the matter by extending opportunity to both the parties and then pass the order. Therefore, allowing the appeal and to restore the consumer complaint for further hearing and disposal by the District Forum in accordance with the law will be in the interest of justice. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dismissing the consumer complaint for default is quashed and set aside. 2. The consumer complaint is restored back to the file of District Forum for further hearing and disposal by the District Forum in accordance with the law. 3. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 26th July 2012. | 
