State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Universal Sompo General Insurance ... vs Purshottam Dutt Pant on 11 November, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 03 / 2013
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited
through its Authorised Signatory
KLS Tower, Plot No. 94
MIDC Mahape, Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) - 400 710
......Revisionist / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Purshottam Dutt Pant S/o Sh. Dhani Ram Pant
R/o Village Badriya, P.O. Naicholi
Patti Dhar Akaria
District Tehri Garhwal
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Sh. Vikram Singh Rana, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 11/11/2013
ORDER
Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral):
This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2012. By the order impugned, the District Forum has dismissed the application dated 26.09.2012 moved by the revisionist - opposite party for setting aside the order dated 21.06.2012, whereby the District Forum directed that the consumer complaint shall proceed ex-parte against the opposite party.
2. The complainant - Sh. Purshottam Dutt Pant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite party - Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited before the District Forum, Tehri 2 Garhwal, alleging deficiency in service on their part by not settling the claim of the complainant.
3. The District Forum registered the consumer complaint on 27.04.2012 and directed for issuance of notice to the opposite party for filing the written statement. The notice sent to the opposite party by registered post was not received back by the District Forum. Since the registered notice sent to the opposite party was not received back unserved by the District Forum, nor any written statement was filed by the opposite party, therefore, the District Forum vide order dated 21.06.2012 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party.
4. The opposite party moved an application dated 26.09.2012 before the District Forum for setting aside the order dated 21.06.2012. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 05.12.2012 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved, the opposite party has filed this revision petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter should get proper opportunity of being heard. We have noticed that the revisionist could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the revisionist for adducing evidence on affidavit, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the revisionist has stated in the application that the written statement could not be filed on the date fixed because the legal officer of the company had gone out of station. The Hon'ble Apex 3 Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank; II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), has observed that "it is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principle of natural justice as well."
7. In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and set aside the same.
8. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held that disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits is illegal on the face of it. The Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment has also held that "moreover without adducing evidence, both the parties obviously did not get an opportunity to prove their respective case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum, which is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Forum below to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits and also permit cross-examination through questionnaire and reply and only after completion of all the necessary procedure as per law, the District Forum shall hear the case on merit and dispose it of preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."
9. Thus, we feel it just and proper to set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The revisionist shall file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 16.12.2013 4 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum shall take all sort of endeavour to decide the consumer complaint as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the revisionist.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Impugned order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the revisionist is directed to file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 16.12.2013 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The cost of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid by the revisionist to the respondent - complainant on the date, when the written statement is filed by the revisionist before the District Forum. The District Forum is further directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the revisionist. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the revisionist seeking time for filing the written statement. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal immediately.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K