Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Forech India Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. on 9 May, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI
  
 
 
 

 
 







 



 

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:  DELHI 

 

(Constituted
under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) 

 

  

 

Date of Decision: 09.05.2012 

 

   

 

 First Appeal No.2012/113 

 

(Arising
out of Order dated 25.07.2011 and 10.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II,
Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.861/2009) 

 

  

 

  

 

M/s. Forech India Ltd., .Appellant/Complainant
 

 

S-23,   Green
  Park Extension, through Mr. T.N. Saxena, 

 

  New Delhi advocate.
 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

Versus 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

New India Assurance,  .Respondents/Opposite
Party 

 

Company Limited,  

 

Through its  

 

Divisional Manager, 

 

R-7A,  Green  Park,   New
  Delhi.  

 

  

 

  

 

CORAM 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

 Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President 

 

  

 

  

 

1.
          

Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2.           To be referred to the Reporter or not?

   

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President  

1.                          A complaint filed by the complainant M/s. Forech India Limited against the appellant/OP New India Assurance Company Limited before District Forum-II was dismissed in default vide order dated 25.07.2011. The complainant thereafter filed a restoration application, which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2012 with the observation of the District Forum, that they have no jurisdiction to pass any restoration order as held by the Honble Supreme Court.

2.                          That is what brings the complainant in appeal before this Commission.

3.                          We have heard Mr. T.N. Saxena, Counsel for the Appellant at the admission stage itself in this appeal.

4.                          It has been the consistent judicial policy to adopt an attitude of lenience in dealing with such situations, because the purpose of law is fulfilled, only when the case is decided on merits after hearing both the parties. The appellant/complainant has said that he had gone to Kanpur as his brother-in-law meet an accident and expired and for this reason could not appear before the District Forum on the date fixed and the complaint was dismissed in default. It would be appropriate to treat the version of the appellant/complainant as genuine and we would therefore allow the appeal and remand the case back, setting aside the impugned order, for deciding the case on merits.

5.                          Ordered accordingly.

6.                          Appellant through his counsel is directed to appear before the District Forum-II on 13.07.2012.

7.                           A copy of this order be provided to the appellant Dasti, whereas a copy of this order be sent to the District Forum-II to place it on record of complaint case No.861/2009 and thereafter this file be consigned to Record room.

Announced on 09th day of May 2012   (Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President   Tri