State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs 1.Gaurav Son Of Sh. Balbir Singh, ... on 17 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Revision Petition No.03 of 2014 Date of Institution: 13.01.2014 Date of Decision: 17.01.2014 National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, 15C/1-2 B.P., Railway Road, Neelam, Bata Chowk, Faridabad through its authorized signatory, R.K. Wali, Manager, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. Petitioner (Opposite Party No.1) Versus 1. Gaurav son of Sh. Balbir Singh, Resident of House No.675, Ward No.3, Krishna Colony, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Dev Vahan-Hero Agency, Civil Lines, G.T. Road, Palwal. Respondent (Opposite Party No.2) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the Petitioner: Shri J.P. Nahar, Advocate. O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member (Oral):
The delay of 189 days in filing of the revision petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. Moreover, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has no objection to delay being condoned.
2. National Insurance Company-opposite party (petitioner herein) is in revision against the order dated April 9th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short District Forum), whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte.
3. Gaurav-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) filed complaint with the averments that his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-30H-0853 insured with the petitioner was stolen on 22.07.2011. Claim being lodged was not allowed.
4. Despite issuing notice, petitioner did not appear and was proceeded exparte vide order dated April 9th, 2013.
5. Petitioner filed an application for setting aside the impugned order which was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated August 21st, 2013 relying upon the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court cited as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another, 2011 STPL (web)717.
6. Since the case is at initial stage and a party must get right to defend in the litigation, this Commission deems it appropriate to allow the revision, however, subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost to be paid to the respondent No.1-complainant compensating him for delay in the proceeding. It is ordered accordingly.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the District Forum forthwith. Dasti be given to the petitioner as prayed for.
Announced:
17.01.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL