AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under section 51(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is in challenge to the Order dated 11.12.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 796 of 2017.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant’). No one appears for the respondent (the ‘insurance co.’). We have also perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 11.12.2019 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.
Vide its Order of 11.12.2019 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint ‘in default for want of prosecution’. The said Order is reproduced below for reference:
On the last date of hearing, fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party subject to filing of its correct address. It was however made clear that in case the correct address of the opposite party was not supplied, the complaint shall be dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
As per the Registry, learned counsel for the complainant did not file the correct address of the opposite party.
None has put in appearance for the complainant. No further wait is justified.
In view of the above, the complaint is hereby dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
Announced
11.12.2019
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the matter relates to an insurance claim. The complainant insured the vehicle in question for the period from 30.03.2014 to 29.03.2015. During the subsistence of the policy the vehicle was stolen. The complainant informed the insurance co. and also lodged first information report with the police. The police investigated the matter and filed untraced police report which was accepted by the judicial magistrate. The insurance co. however refused to honour the claim. The complainant has a good case on merit and wants opportunity to present his case before the State Commission. Submission is that the complainant will prejudicially suffer irreparably if the complaint is not restored and it may eventually lead to complete miscarriage of justice leaving the complainant remediless and helpless. Learned counsel also submits that notice had as then not been served on the opposite party insurance co. when the case was dismissed by the State Commission. He further submits that the complainant will dutifully take the necessary steps before the State Commission to ensure the due service of notice on the opposite party insurance co.
Having objectively and impartially considered the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances as are being borne out by the record, it is deemed to be just and conscionable that opportunity be provided to the complainant for getting the matter adjudicated on merit before the State Commission.
This Commission is consciously refraining from detailing the facts or critiquing the matter since the dispute is as yet to be adjudicated on merit and it does not wish to in any manner colour the vision of the forum below.
The Order dated 11.12.2019 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission.
The complainant is sternly advised to conduct his case with due diligence before the State Commission. He is directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.06.2023.
The State Commission is requested to issue notice afresh to the opposite party insurance co. and to adjudicate the complaint, as per the procedure, on merit, in accordance with the law. The steps for service of notice shall be undertaken by the complainant.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to forthwith send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.