Frist Appeal No. 850 of 2014. Case: IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balwan Singh. Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFrist Appeal No. 850 of 2014
Party NameIFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balwan Singh
CounselFor Appellant: G.D. Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: J.S. Yadav, Advocate
JudgesR.K. Bishnoi, Member (J) and Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationII (2015) CPJ 102 (Har.)
Judgement DateJanuary 28, 2015
CourtHaryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

R.K. Bishnoi, Member (J)

  1. There is a delay of 402 days in filing the appeal, wherein it is alleged by the appellant that impugned order dated 4.7.2013 came to its notice on 5.9.2014 when the bailable warrants issued by District Forum, Rewari for 12.9.2014 were received at the office. While initiating ex parte proceedings against it, learned District Forum mentioned in the order that the notice sent to effect service was not received back with or without report, whereas no notice was ever received by it. Thereafter the documents were collected and appeal was filed. The delay is not intentional and the same may be condoned.

    Arguments heard. File perused.

    The appellant-opposite parties (OPs) were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.2.2013 which is as under:

    "Present: Mr. Mahesh Yadav, Advocate for complainant. None for OP.

    Notice issued to OP through Regd. AD on dated 8.1.2013 not received back either served or unserved. A period of more than 30 days has already expired. The presumption of law is that OP has been served. Case called several times since morning but nobody has appeared on behalf of OP. Waited sufficiently. It is already 3.30 p.m. Hence, OP is. proceeded against ex parte. Now to come up on 11.4.2013 for evidence on behalf of the complainant.

    Actually the order was passed on 12.2.2013 but under the signatures the date is mentioned as 12.2.2012.

  2. From the perusal of this order it appears that registered AD was not received even after 30 days from issuance. From the perusal of the record of District Forum it is clear that registered cover (In short "RC") issued for 12.2.2013 is already on file when it was received is not clear from the order sheet. Report about service on registered cover was made on 11.1.2013, one month prior to the date fixed. So it cannot be presumed that RC was not received back. More so, as pet report on RC the OP was not available at the given address because word left is mentioned thereupon. As per this report, it is clear that OP was not available at the given address and the fact of complaint did not come to its notice. In such a situation it cannot be presumed...

To continue reading

Request your trial