NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/451/2013

ANOOP SRIVASTAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MD. ZARYAB JAMAL RIZVI & MS. FIRDOUSE Q WANI

27 Oct 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 27/11/2012 in Complaint No. 06/2010 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. ANOOP SRIVASTAVA
S/o Shri Shivaji Srivastava, R/o: C-139, Sector-H, Aliganj
Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
DO 712 500, New ?No.260, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 006,
Tamil Nadu
2. M/S. TTK HEALTHCARE SERVICES P LTD.,
NO-2 H. B COMPLEX BTM LAYOUT 1,
BANGALORE
KARNATAKA - 560068
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Mr.Zaryab Jamal Rizvi, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr.Mohan Babu Agarwal, Advocate
for R-1
NEMO for R-2

Dated : 27 Oct 2014
ORDER

          This Appeal by the Complainant is directed against order dated 27.11.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow in Complaint No.C-6/10.  By the said order, the Complaint has been dismissed for non-prosecution as no one had appeared on behalf of the Complainant, when the case was listed for hearing on the aforesaid date.

          Upon Notice, Mr.Mohan Babu Agarwal has entered appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1.

          Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the proceedings sheets of the case, maintained by the State Commission, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable.

          It is evident from the record that after the filing of the Complaint, it came up for consideration on 3.2.2010, when at the request of counsel for the Complainant it was directed to be listed, on the point of admission, on 16.3.2010.  Thereafter, for over two years, the case was not listed. On 24.5.2012, the case was placed before the Registrar for fixing the next date.  On the said date, it was directed that the case shall be listed for final hearing on 27.11.2012.  There is nothing on record to indicate that any intimation was sent to the Complainant about the listing of the case after two years.  The impugned order, however, records that the cause list, showing listing of the case on 27.11.2012 was uploaded on the Website of the Commission.  We feel that since the case was listed abruptly after two years of its institution, the date of hearing should have been intimated to the Complainant. It is pertinent to note that free copy of the impugned order was also despatched to the Complainant after a lapse of almost four months from the date when it was made.  We are convinced that dismissal of the complaint without due notice of hearing on 27.11.2012, is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the Complainant to have his say before the State Commission.

          Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint is restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication in accordance with law.

          Parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 9.12.2014 for further proceedings.

          Appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.