Haryana

StateCommission

RP/54/2019

UIIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KALI DEVI AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

10 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.54 of 2019

 Date of Institution:18.06.2019

  Date of Decision:10.07.2019

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Capital Cinema Building, V.S. Marg, Lucknow.

Now the petitioner is being represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office at SCO No.123-124, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh.

…..Revisionist.

Versus

 

1.      Kali Devi W/o Sh. Chela Ram, R/o Village Sulkhani, Tehsil and District Hisar.

2.      Dr. Sahil Popli, Medical Officer, C.M.C. Hospital, Delhi Road, Hisar.

3.      C.M.C. Hospital, Delhi Road, Hisar, through its Director/Authorized Person.

…Respondents.

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member.

                                                        

Present:-    Mr.Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the revisionist.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1.                As per order dated 09.07.2019 contained in letter No.1577, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.                Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short ‘learned District Forum’), vide present revisionist, who was respondent No.3 before learned District Forum was proceeded against ex-parte.

2.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, revisionist-respondent No.3 parties has preferred the present revision petition.

3.               The arguments have been advanced at length by Sh. Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist.

4.                Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the present revisionist-respondent No.3 received the information of the ex-parte order through their panel counsel on 13.05.2019. It was submitted that 30.04.2019 was first date for appearance of the petitioner and the case was at initial stage, thereafter the matter was adjourned to 02.05.2019 and the revisionist-respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte. It has further argued that non appearance of the present revisionist before learned District Forum was neither intentional nor willful, so the impugned order dated 02.05.2019 may be set-aside and  an opportunity may be given to the present revisionist for filing its written statement, lead its evidence and advancing final arguments on merits.

5.                From the perusal of record, it is clear that the present revisionist- respondent No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte by the learned District Forum, Hisar vide order dated 02.05.2019. However, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. So, the present revisionist should be afforded an opportunity of representing itself before learned District Forum. Under these circumstances, impugned order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Hisar is set-aside for all intents and purposes, present revision petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum, Hisar to decide the complaint on merits after affording an opportunity to present revisionist to file its written statement and to lead its respective evidence. The revision petition be consigned to the record room.

6.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Hisar on 29.09.2019 for further proceedings. 

 

 

July   10^th, 2019                                                                      Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl. Bench              

           

R.K.