Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Satish Dhingra vs Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 12 May, 2011

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
  
 







 



 

IN
THE STATE COMMISSION :   DELHI 

 

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

 
Date of Decision : 12.5.2011 

   

 First Appeal
17/2011 

 

  

 

(Arising
out of the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the 

 

District
Forum(North), Tis Hazari,   Delhi in complaint case no 560/2010) 

 
   
   
   

  
  
   
   

Shri Satish Dhingra 
   

Through his wife 
   

Ms. Shakun Dhingra 
   

R/o WZ-6A,L-23, 
   

Flat No.8, Gali No.15, 
   

New Mahavir Nagar, 
   

  New
    Delhi  110
  018 
  
   
   

  
   

 .........Appellant 
  
 


 VS 

 
   
   
   

  
  
   
   

The Manager 
   

HDFC Standard Life
  Insurance Co. Ltd., 
   

Branch Office : B 23,
  Community Centre, 
   

Janakpuri,   New Delhi  110 050 
   

  
  
   
   

  
   


  ..Respondent  
   

  
   

  
  
 


 

CORAM 

 

Justice
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President 

 

Salma
Noor, Member 
 

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

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER  

1. Vide this appeal the appellant is challenging the order of the District Consumer Forum (North) dated 15.12.2010, whereby the complaint filed by him was returned to him for filing before the proper Forum holding that since cases in which cause of action has arisen within the Police Station, Janakpuri, work of which has not been allocated to it by the Notification issued by the Honble Lieutenant Governor, the Forum has no power to entertain the present case. The prayer in this appeal is to quash/set aside that order and for direction to that District Forum to decide the complaint on merits.

 

2. We have heard the arguments of Shri Mohd. Elahi, Advocate for appellant on the point of admission and have gone through the record.

 

3. As per record, the appellant filed complaint against the OP who carries on business at Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi. Admittedly there is a District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Janakpuri to entertain and deal with the matters arising within its local limits. It is nowhere case of the appellant that cause of action arose anywhere else. The impugned order has been passed keeping in view the provisions of Law and Notification regarding allocation of work, The appellant has not disclosed any reason for not filing the complaint before the concerned Forum, or for opting to file complaint against the respondent in District Forum (North) instead of District Forum Janakpuri.

 

4. The sole ground on which this appeal has been filed is that the District Forum wrongly decided the complaint case on the ground of notification published in 1999 and refused to consider order passed by this Com mission in FA No.10/220 decided on 17.3.2010. This ground is misconcerned as the complaint case has not been decided and the authority submitted by the appellant has been considered. Ld. District Forum has however observed that the present controversy centers around work allocation made by Honble L.G., Delhi amongst various Consumer Fora in Delhi by general order. That Notification has been reproduced in the impugned order and reference has also been made to relevant provisions and Rule under which Notification has been issued. The appellant is not disputing the said Notification, nor has he assailed the reasons given by the District Forum for deciding controversy about work allocation amongst various Consumer Fora, on the basis of which the complaint at its threshold/initial stage itself has been ordered to be returned for filing before the proper Forum. It is not shown as to in what manner the appellant has been prejudiced thereby. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Merely stating that the order is contrary to Law, facts and equity is of no consequence. The ground that there is no application of the judicial mind is contrary to record which is apparent from the bare perusal of the impugned order itself. There is no other ground  

5. For the reasons stated above, we come to the conclusion that this appeal cannot be proceeded with. Therefore, this appeal is rejected.

 

6. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter this file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President     (Mrs. Salma Noor) Member