Delhi

StateCommission

A/239/2015

SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted un      der Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 16.03.2016

 

 

Appeal No.239/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 19.01.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.384/2013 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum(New Delhi), Delhi

 

 

In the matter of:

 

Smt. Krishna Kumar,

D/o Shri Suraj Narayan,

W/o Shri Muni Ram,

R/o Gali No.3, Vikas Nagar,

Sonepat.                                                                                                                    ....Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.

Through its Chief Managing Director.

Sundaram Towers 45 & 46,

White Road, Chennai – 600014.

 

2. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.

Through its Managing Director.

21, Patullos Road,

Chennai – 600014.

 

3. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.

Through its Branch Manager

Amandeep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001

 

4. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.

Through its Branch Director.

Rider House, Plot No.136,

Sector -44, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                            ….….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

 

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, where prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 19.01.2015 passed in Consumer Case No.384/2013 whereby the complaint case of the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum has been dismissed for non-appearance.
2. Alongwith the appeal there is an application for condonation of 82 days delay in filing the appeal.  No reply to this application has been filed by the respondent.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant states on 09.05.2013 the complaint of the appellant/complainant was admitted by the Ld. District Forum and notice was issued to the respondent/OP, and thereafter it was listed for 3-4 dates. The appellant/complainant had already engaged an advocate for perusing the complaint. However, his counsel did not appear before the District Forum and the matter was dismissed for non-appearance on 19.01.2015. On 07.04.2015, the grandson of the appellant/complainant met the counsel and enquired about the development of the case. The counsel informed him that the case had already been dismissed in default on 19.01.2015.
4. Thereupon, certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 09.04.2015. The same was supplied to the grandson of the appellant/complainant on 28.04.2015. Thereafter necessary funds were engaged and a new counsel was engaged, who thereafter prepared the appeal and filed the same before this Commission on 12.05.2015. It is alleged that due to aforesaid reasons the delay of 82 days has been caused in filing this appeal. The application is supported with the affidavit of Sh. Himanshu the grandson of the appellant/complainant.
5. It is stated that from the date of knowledge there is delay of only 04 days. It is also stated that the appellant/complainant is a woman of 67 years of age, and residing at Sonipat and due to the said reason there was also difficulty in communicating with the earlier counsel.
6. As noted above, no reply to the aforesaid application has been filed by the respondent/OP.  There is an affidavit of the grandson of the complainant.
7. We have considered the reasoning given in the application which is supported with the affidavit of the grandson of the appellant/complainant, we find no reason to disbelieve the same. The appellant/complainant has been able to show sufficient cause due to which she could not file the appeal within time. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
8. We have also considered the impugned order. If the same is not set aside it will cause great prejudice to the appellant/complainant as she will be deprived of her valuable rights of pursuing her case, whereas no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/OP if the impugned order is set aside, as the respondent/OP will get full chance to substantiate their stand.
9. Keeping in mind the reasoning given and also that the appellant/complainant is a lady of 67 years of age and a resident of Sonipat, and the complaint was filed by her for insurance claim, we accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order and restore the complaint to its original number.
10. The parties shall appear before District Forum on 16.05.2016. The Ld. District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
11. The appeal stands disposed of.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum(New Delhi) for information and keeping it on record for compliance

              File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member