State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs Sow. Gangasagar Munjaji Sakhre on 2 April, 2014
1 R.P. No. 15-14
MAHARASTHRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH
AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing: 24.03.2014
Date of Order: 02.04.2014
REVISION PETITION NO. 15 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 31 OF 2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: HINGOLI.
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office No.1, Adalat Road, Aurangabad.
Through its Divisional Manager,
Shri. Sanjeev s/o. Ramrao Gaisamudre
R/o. Aurangabad. ... Revision Petitioner
VERSUS
Sow. Gangasagar Munjaji Sakhre
R/o. Aaral Tq. Basmath,
Dist. Hingoli. ...
Respondent
Coram : Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. M. M. Ambhore for revision petitioner.
- :: O R A L J U D G M E N T :: -
(Delivered on 2nd April, 2014) Per Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
1. This revision petition is filed by the original opponent against the order dated 24.02.2014 passed by District Forum, Hingoli in consumer complaint No.31.2012.
2. Brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that, the complainant has filed complaint dated 31.01.2012 for compensation under the "Farmers Personal Accident Policy" before the District Forum, Hingoli. That, the 2 District Forum admitted the complaint on 26.12.2014 and issued notice to the petitioner returnable on 29.01.2013. Thereafter till 26.06.2013 matter was for awaiting service report of notice issued to the respondent. That on 26.06.2013 District Forum passed an "exparte" order against the present petitioner without making any mention of service of notice to the petitioner. That, thereafter the petitioner filed application dated 29.08.2013 before the District Forum for setting aside the exparte order. That, after getting say of the other side on 30.09.2013 on the application filed by the petitioner the District Forum by its order dated 24.02.2013 rejected the application for setting aside the exparte order and therefore the present petition is filed with the request to allow revision petition and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the District Forum, Hingoli and to allow the revision petition by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel That, as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of- Rajiv Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achut Kashinath Karekar, IV-(2011)-CPJ-35-(SC)=2011-(5)-ALL M.R.-951-(SC), it is very specifically observed that, except the National Commission, the State Commission as well as the District Forum have no jurisdiction to set aside or modify its own order. Therefore we find that the District Forum having no power to set aside its own order has rightly rejected the application for setting aside its own order of "exparte". That the notice issued to the petitioner was returnable on 29.01.2013 and there was no report of service to the present petitioner till 26.03.2013. However on the said date the District Forum without making any mention on the point of service of notice has passed the exparte order and when it was requested by its application dated 29.07.2013 to set aside the same, the District Forum by its order dated 24.02.2014 has dismissed the application and hence this revision petition.3 R.P. No. 15-14
4. On perusal of the revision petition the application dated 29.07.2013 and the daily proceedings from 27.02.2013 till 24.02.2014, it is observed that the District Forum admitted the complaint on 26.02.2012 and issued notice returnable on 29.02.2013. Thereafter matter appears to have been adjourned on 27.02.2013, 28.03.2013, 29.04.2013, 31.05.2013, 26.06.2013. It reveals that the notice was served on the petitioner on 28.03.2013, but there was no report about service of notice, hence the matter came to be adjourned from time to time till 26.06.2013.
It appears that although the notice was served prior to 29.04.2013 the petitioner did not remain present on further dates on 31.05.2013 and on 26.06.2013 and therefore the District Forum has passed exparte order against the present petitioner on 26.06.2013. Thereafter the petitioner filed application dated 29.06.2013 to set aside the exparte order dated 26.06.2013. However by its order dated 24.02.2014 the District Forum dismissed the application on the ground that it has no power to cancel or modify its own exparte order.
5. We find that the District Forum's exparte order dated 26.06.2013 against the petitioner is just and proper as even after service of notice the petitioner remained absent for the hearing on 31.05.2013 and further on 26.06.2013. The impugned order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the District Forum dismissing the application for setting aside the exparte order also appears to be quite legal as the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Rajiv Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achut Kashinath Karekar, IV-(2011)-CPJ-35-(SC)=2011-(5)-ALL M.R.-951-(SC), it is very specifically observed that, except the National Commission, the State Commission as well as the District Forum have no jurisdiction to set aside or modify its own order. Therefore we find that the District Forum having no power to set aside its own order has rightly rejected the application for setting aside its own order of "exparte".
4
6. However it is observed that at the time of passing of the ex-parte order on 26.06.2013 the report of service of notice on the petitioner was not placed on record by the complainant although the notice was said to be served on the petitioner and therefore we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum ought to have waited for the service report to confirm service of notice on the petitioner. Hence in order to give opportunity to the revision petitioner to contest the complaint by filing its written version, we feel it just and proper to direct the District Consumer Forum to accept written version subject to payment of cost Rs.3000/- in the 'legal aid account' of this Commission.
7. In the result, we pass the following order.
-:: ORDER ::-
1. Revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to depositing cost Rs.3000/- in the 'legal aid account' of this Commission, within three weeks from today.
2. Inform accordingly to the District Forum, Hingoli.
3. Copies of this order be supplied to both the parties.
(K. B. Gawali) (Mrs. Uma S. Bora)
Member Presiding Member
Kalyankar