AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE respondent herein is the complainant in C.D. No. 185/91. THE said complaint was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under a medi-claim policy against the Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein. During the pendency of the consumer dispute, it appears from the order passed by the District Forum dt. 3.4.92 that the complainant filed a petition to examine the witnesses. Since the District Forum felt that the examining of witnesses itself excludes the jurisdiction of the forum, it dismissed the petition. But by mistake, this order was treated as an order in the consumer dispute and the consumer dispute itself was dismissed. On noticing this, the complainant filed an application - I.A No. 13/ 92 to set aside the dismissal order passed in C.D. No. 185/91 on 3.4.92 and to restore the same to file and to dispose of the same on merits. THE said application was opposed by the respondent therein, that is, the appellant herein, on the ground that since the forum dismissed the consumer dispute on the question of jurisdiction the interlocutory application for setting aside the dismissal order is not at all maintainable under law. THE District Forum, after hearing both the parties, found that instead of dismissing the petition for adducing evidence, by mistake, the main consumer dispute itself was dismissed without affording any opportunity to the parties. THErefore, the District Forum committed an error apparent on the face of the record and they therefore, felt that the consumer dispute should be restored and disposed of on merits in the interests of justice.
QUESTIONING this order on the interlocutory application, the opposite party in the consumer dispute preferred the appeal. Actually the party should have preferred a revision and not an appeal, as they are questioning the order passed in the interlocutory application in the consumer dispute. In the circumstances, we treated this case as revision and heard the Counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the order passed by the District Forum is in the main consumer dispute itself, as it found, that the Civil Court is the proper forum for deciding the dispute. But it appears from the order dt. 3.4.92, the forum dismissed only the petition for adducing evidence and not the main consumer dispute. The dismissal order passed in the consumer dispute is purely a mistake. The District Forum is, therefore, justified in correcting the mistake and restoring the consumer dispute to file. We see no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum passed in I.A. No. 13/92 in C.D. No. 185/91. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed.