SAHARA INDIA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR RANCHAND GUNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 202 of 2010 - Sahara India Vs. Ashok kumar Ranchand Gunani & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was confirmed, but words 'Insurance Policy and 'Bond ' mentioned in the order of District Forum were substituted by the word 'Insurance Order ' and 'Bank Order ', respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Sangitaben obtained insurance policy from OP -Petitioner on 31.7.1998 for Rs.10,000/ - for a period of 10 years and deceased Sangitaben nominated each of the complainants/respondents as a nominee in the ratio of 25% each. On 12.10.2007, Sangitaben died. Complainant No. 1 was paid Rs.10,000/ - as death maturity, but Death Health Facility Benefit was not granted. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP/petitioner, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP was proceeded ex -parte and learned District Forum vide order dated 6.1.2010 allowed complaint and directed OP to make payment of Rs.12,00,000/ -. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice for appearance on 2.12.2009 before District Forum was issued on 9.12.2009 and on account of non -appearance of petitioner, petitioner was proceeded ex -parte on 22.12.2009 and ex -parte order was passed on 6.1.2013 without taking any evidence and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order of District Forum be set aside. Learned Counsel for the respondent admitted that as per record, by notice dated 9.12.2009, petitioner was asked to appear on 2.12.2009 before District Forum and apparently, District Forum committed error in allowing complaint ex -parte; hence, revision petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with law.