State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Star Health & Allied Insurance ... vs Sayanm Malhotra & Anr. on 29 July, 2013
{Satish Kumar versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited}
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Revision
Petition No: 42/2013.
Date
of Decision: 29.07.2013.
1. M/s Star Health & Allied Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Corporate Office 1, New Tank Street,
Valluvarkottam High Road,
Chennai-600034,
Through its Manager.
2. M/s Star Health & Allied Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Branch Office: SCO 257, 2nd
Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh,
Through its Manager.
Petitioners.
Versus
1. Sayanm Malhotra S/o Shri Rajeev Malhotra,
R/o D-8, Dev Niwas,
Engine Ghar, Sanjauli, Shimla-6, HP.
2. The Shield, A-47, Middle Circle,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi,
Through its Manager.
Respondents.
...................................................................................................
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Petitioners: Mr. Arun K. Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Dheeraj Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Nemo.
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) M.A. No.316/2013.
For the reasons stated in the application, which make out a sufficient cause, delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Disposed of.
R.P. No.42/2013.
2. Heard and gone through the record.
3. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.08.2012, whereby defence of the revision petitioners has been struck of on account of their failure to file reply to the complaint, despite repeated adjournments.
4. It is stated in the revision petition that the counsel engaged by the revision petitioners never apprised the petitioners of the orders regarding filing of reply and because of that reply could not be filed. Explanation is supported by affidavit of a functionary of the revision petitioners. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and it is ordered that one more opportunity shall be afforded to the revision petitioners to file their reply and if despite such opportunity they fail to file reply, no further opportunity need be granted. Matter is stated to be listed for hearing before the learned District Forum on 19.08.2013.
5. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum, Shimla, on the aforesaid date.
6. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member July 29, 2013.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?