State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Kanwar Singh. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10 May, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 69/2016
Date of Presentation: 17.03.2016
Date of Decision: 10.05.2016
...............................................................................
Kanwar Singh,
Son of Shri Chattar Singh,
Resident of Village Kamroou,
Sub Tehsil Kamroou,
District Sirmour, H.P.
.......... Appellant
Versus
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Yamuna Nagar, near Telephone Exchange,
Jagadhari Road, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
Through its Branch Manager.
.......... Respondent
...............................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ex-parte.
...........................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Nobody appears for the respondent, despite presumptive service, as the notice sent by registered AD post, on 01.04.2016, or say more than thirty days earlier, has not been received back. Hence, respondent is proceeded ex-parte. 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Kanwar Singh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(F.A. No.69/2016)
2. Appeal is barred by time and, therefore, an application for condonation of delay, i.e. M.A. No.124/2016, has been moved. The delay is of one hundred twenty-five days, which has been sufficiently explained. So, it is condoned. Appeal, i.e. F.A. No.69/2016, is admitted.
3. Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.2015, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby appellant's complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed, in default of his appearance.
4. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that the appellant had engaged a counsel to represent him, but the said counsel noted down the date wrongly, from the previous date and because of that reason, appellant could not put in appearance on 13.10.2015, when impugned order was passed.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant, i.e. C.C.No.91/2013, titled Kanwar Singh Vs. United 2 Kanwar Singh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(F.A. No.69/2016) India Insurance Company Ltd., is restored to file of the learned District Forum.
6. Appellant is directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, on 20.05.2016.
7. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 10, 2016.
GAURAV} 3