State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jitender Bhadana vs M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... on 27 July, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2018
Date of Institution: 15.01.2018
Date of Decision: 27.07.2022
Jitender Bhadana son of Shri Bhagiram, resident of House No.1989/2,
Village Pali Tehsil and District Faridabad.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.2, 1st
Floor, Special HUDA Market, Sector 19, Faridabad near Amar Tex
Room through its Manager.
2. M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office
IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre Saket New Delhi-110017
through its MD/Director/Manager.
.....Opposite Parties
CORAM: Mrs. Manjula, Member.
Present: None for the complainant
Ms. Swati Batra, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Manjula, Member On the last date of hearing, the Commission had passed the following order:-
"A number of opportunities have been availed by the counsel for the complainant for recording the evidence but failed to do so. Even otherwise after 22.01.2020, the complaint could not be taken up on 09.07.2020 and subsequent thereto on 07.12.2020, 24.02.2021 and 13.05.2021 because of pandemic on account of COVID-19.
In the interest of justice, adjourned to 31.01.2022 for recording evidence of the complainant.C.C. No.26 of 2018 2
Jitender Bhadana Vs. M/s Iffco Tokio Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
It is however made clear that in the event of the complainant not producing his evidence, the State Commission might be constrained to dismiss the complaint in default for want of prosecution."
2. The complaint has been coming up for recording evidence of the complainant since 07.12.2018. Today case called several times since morning but neither the complainant nor his counsel has put in appearance. Perusal of the record shows that neither the complainant nor his counsel has been appearing for the last five consecutive dates of hearing i.e. on 07.12.2018, 26.04.2019, 22.08.2019, 22.01.2020 and 16.11.2021. It appears that the complainant is not interested in pursuing the present complaint. No more wait is justified.
3. In view of the above, the Commission is left with no other option but to dismiss the complaint in default for want of prosecution.
4. Ordered accordingly.
Announced (Manjula) 27.07.2022 Member