BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 561 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.22 OF 2007
DISTRICT FORUM, KURNOOL.

Between:

1. The Branch Manager
Andhra Bank, Atmakur
Kurnool District

2. Andhra Bank
Head Office, Dr.Pattabhi Bhavan
Saifabad, Hyderabad rep. by
Asst.General Manager
Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

K.Ameerun Bee
W/o late K.Anwar Basha,
Aged about 25 years,
R/o Atmakur Vilalge and Mandal
Kurnool Dist.

Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.Vijayakumar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.Jaffar



QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&

SRI R.LAXMINARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER



WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND NINE



Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Laxminarsimha Rao, Member)
***

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum Kurnool in C.C.No.22 of 2007.

The Andhra Bank, Atmakur Kurnool District and another have filed this appeal stating that the District Forum had issued notice directing them to appear before it on 21.3.2007 and even prior to that date i.e., 14.3.2007 the District forum had passed the order setting them exparte and directed them to pay an amount of Rs. one lakh toward sum assured, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-. In addition to the said reason, the appellants state that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained since there was no amount in the account of the husband of the respondent and has no premium insurance coverage on the life of late husband of the respondent was not available to her.

The District Forum has passed the impugned order by setting the appellants exparte.

The appellant ahs filed written arguments reiterating the grounds mentioned in the appeal. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the respondent or her counsel did neither turn up nor filed written arguments.

A perusal of the record shows that the respondent has filed complaint in C.C.No.22 of 2007 before the District Forum. Notice was issued and served on the appellant no.1 on 12.2.2007. In the notice the date of hearing of the complaint is clearly mentioned as “ at 10.30 a.m. on 21.3.2007”. Admittedly the impugned order was passed on 14.3.2007.

A perusal of docket order shows that notice was served on the appellants on 10.2.2007. On 7.3.2007 the appellants were called absent, they were set exparte and the case was adjourned to 13.03.2007 for information of complainant on which date the complainant filed her affidavit and the documents filed by her were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. The impugned order was passed the next day only i.e., 14.3.2007. The entire proceedings goes to show that District Forum was misled as to the date of hearing resulting the disposal of the complaint on 14.3.2007 which is prior to the date of hearing, 21.3.2007 as was furnished to the appellants. Hence, there was no opportunity for the appellants to know about the dates of hearing of the case prior to 21.3.2007 on which date they were required to appear in person or through their counsel before the District Forum.

A defendant or opposite party is not expected to make appearance before the court prior to the date mentioned in the notice served on them. An order passed without hearing the other party cannot be sustained as per the mandate of the principles of natural justice. Therefore without going into the merits of the case we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to be remanded to the District Forum for denova enquiry.

In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District forum dated 14.3.2007. The District Forum is directed to restore the C.D. and give opportunity to the appellant to file written version of their defence and opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and pronounce orders on merits within three months. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 13.4.2009 without insisting on fresh notice. No costs.



PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
25.03.2009