Delhi

StateCommission

FA/4/2014

THE DEPARTMENT OF POST - Complainant(s)

Versus

URMILA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/4/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. THE DEPARTMENT OF POST
MEGHDOOT BHAWAN, LINK ROAD AT:DELHI CIRCLE NEW DELHI-110001.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. URMILA SHARMA
R/O T-272, GALI No.5, GAUTAM PURI, DELHI-53.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 13-10-2014

First Appeal No. 4/14.

( Arising out of the order dated 26.8.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.1192/10 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, (New Delhi), K.G. Marg.)

In the matter of

The Department of Post India

Postal Life Insurance

Through its :

Chief Postmaster General

Meghdoot Bhawan, Link Road

At: Delhi Circle

New Delhi-110001.

……Appellant

 

Versus

Smt. Urmila Sharma

W/o Late Ram Kumar Sharma

R/o T-272, Gali No. 5,

Gautam Puri, Delhi-53.

Respondents

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

NP Kaushik,Member(Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the      judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

  1. In the present appeal challenge has been made to order dated 26.8.2011 by which the respondent has been given the maturity amount of two policies and compensation cost for harassment & litigation expenses at Rs.50,000/-.
  2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that the respondent was never served on 13.1.2011 as has been noted in the impugned order.  Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the appellant/OP had come to know about the present proceedings only when notice of execution of impugned order was served on the appellant on 29.10.2013 wherein appellant/OP was directed to appear before the District Forum on 7.11.2013.  It is stated that on 7.11.2013, when appellant had appeared before the District Forum he was directed to make the payment and the next date of 16.1.14 was fixed in the matter.  However, in the meantime appellant had filed the present appeal. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed without giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing and as such the same can’t be sustained.
  3. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that there is concealment by the insured person i.e. deceased about his ailments in the form filled by him at the time of taking policies in question. It is submitted that the policy holder had various diseases and he had deliberately concealed the same.  It is submitted that the appellant has ample evidence to substantiate his defence as such he be given chance to put forth the same.
  4. We have gone through the record of the District Forum.  There is nothing on record to show that the appellant/OP was served for 13.1.11 before the District Forum.  The file of the District Forum shows that the Complaint case was taken up for first time on 19.10.10 when notice of the complaint was issued to the appellant/OP by Regd. AD post for 24.1.11.  On 24.1.11, there was no Coram and the case was adjourned to 10.3.11.  The order sheet of 10.3.11 records that the notice was served on 13.1.11. On 10.3.11 the case is adjourned to 28.3.11.  On the said date appellant is proceeded ex-parte. There is no material on record to show as to how the appellant has been served for 13.1.11. After going through the order sheet of District Forum and other material on record, we are not satisfied with the order of the District Forum about the service on appellant/OP. 
  5. Ld. Counsel of the respondent/complainant has also stated that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the appellant be given chance to contest the case on merits.
  6.  In view of the position discussed above, the impugned order is set aside subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-.
  7. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on the date already fixed i.. 26.11.2014. On the said date the appellant shall pay the cost to the respondent and the District Forum thereafter shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. On the said date, the appellant shall submit written version alongwith cost of Rs.5,000/-.
  8. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall have any hearing on the merits of the case and the District Forum shall be free to decide the matter on the basis of material on record.
  9. Since the matter has been remanded back to the District Forum, the FDR deposited by the appellant/OP before this Commission be released to them after completion of due formalities.

10.A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded   to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum alongwith its records.

11.File be consigned to Record Room.

12.Appeal stands disposed off. 

 

        

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
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.