AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 31.05.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 2263 of 2003 arising out of the Order dated 09.06.2003 of the District Commission in complaint no. 497 of 1998.
The matter has been called repeatedly and intermittently a number of times over a period of more than half an hour.
No one appears for the petitioner.
Mr. Ishank Gupta, proxy counsel is present for the respondent.
We have gone through the record. Prima facie we do not find any glaring or catching infirmity in the impugned Order. As the counsel for the petitioner has not appeared we have not entered into the last details of the merits in the case. But what we certainly do not miss to observe from the record of the proceedings before this Commission is that there have been incessant attempts to procrastinate this matter. Time and again adjournments have been sought. On a number of occasions nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner at all. We also notice that at some stage(s) the Commission expressly deprecated the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner and passed some strict Order(s). But the things hardly appear to have improved.
We also note that the accident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The premium had been paid. The subject insurance policy was valid. As the claim was not settled to the satisfaction of the complainant he filed his complaint way back in 1998. After litigation before the District Commission the matter went before the State Commission, which passed its impugned Order in 2012. We are now in 2022.
In the backdrop of the afore, we have no hesitation to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution and in default.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.