STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA  

                                                                  Date of Institution: 25.07.2024

                Date of hearing: 04.09.2024

                      Date of pronouncement: 04.09.2024

First Appeal No.955 of 2024

Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman S/o Shri Shankar, R/o Village Baijalpur, Tehsil and District Fatehabad..….Appellant

Versus

1.      Universal Sampo General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor,     SCO No.9, Sector-10, Panchkula through its Authorized Signatory.

2.      Universal Sampo General Insurance Company Limited, Unit   No.401,      4^th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road,          Andheri (E),        Mumbai-400059 through its Managing Director.     

3.      Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Bhuna, Tehsil & District          Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

4.      Deputy Director Agriculture, Fatehabad.                           ….Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member. 

Present:-    Mr. Dharam Pal Panwar, counsel for appellant.

O R D E R

PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:             

                             In this appeal; order dated 09.05.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Fatehabad has been questioned by appellant. Sushil Kumar instituted Consumer Complaint (C.C. No.341 of 2020) titled as “Sushil Kumar Vs. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.” before learned District Consumer Commission-Fatehabad, filed on 14.12.2020. It has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution vide order dated 09.05.2024.

2.       Feeling dissatisfied, this appeal has been filed.

3.       Learned counsel for appellant has been heard.

4.      Keeping in view the nature of dispute, this Commission does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to respondent, as it would unnecessary burdened the parties to the lis, financially exchequer.

 5.               It is a settled law that lis between the parties must be decided on merits, de-hors in any technical consideration. In process of justice dispensation, every litigant must be given adequate opportunity to plead his-her case in a meaningful manner. In any case; all procedural laws are handmade and they should be applied to sub-serve cause of justice, and not to defeat the same.

6.      In wake of above, order dated 09.05.2024 is hereby set-aside and Consumer Complaint No. 341 of 2020 is restored to its original number. Complainant-Sushil Kumar is now directed to appear before learned District Consumer Commission on 30.09.2024. Thereafter, learned District Consumer Commission-Fatehabad would cause appearance of respondents either self or through counsel. Since, complaint is of year 2020; so learned District Consumer Commission would endeavour to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible.

 5.               Above concession granted to complainant/appellant would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited by complainant-Sushil Kumar in District Legal Services Authority- Fatehabad and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.341 of 2020) before learned District Commission, Fatehabad on 30.09.2024.

5.                 A copy of this order be provided to all parties, free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission for perusal of parties. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced on 04^th September, 2024.

                                                                        S.C. Kaushik                        Naresh Katyal                                                                                 Member                                 Judicial Member

                                                                        Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench