HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. Vs. PANMATI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent, as detailed above, under Sec. 58 (1) ( b) of the Consumer Protection 2019, against the order dtd. 22/3/2021 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh ( hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in First Appeal ( FA) No. 621 of 2010.

(2.) Petitioners have challenged the said order dtd. 22/3/2021 of the State Commission on the following grounds:

(3.) Heard counsel for both sides. In this case, vide order dtd. 22/3/2021, in Appeal No. 621 of 2010, the State Commission stated that Appeal is abated as despite order of this Commission ( NCDRC) dtd. 28/3/2018, legal heirs of deceased were not replaced, while the respondent died on 8/3/2017. The Petitioner has drawn our attention to order dtd. 28/3/2018 passed by this Commission, as per which, RP was allowed, impugned order of the State Commission was set aside and matter was remanded back to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits after disposal of application of Inder Pal Singh dtd. 18/4/2017 for substitution in place of late complainant. Petitioner has also drawn our attention to the application dtd. 18/4/2017 filed by them before the State Commission for substitution of legal heirs. Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to orders dtd. 27/4/2018, 28/9/2018 and 18/12/2020 of the State Commission. Perusal of the order dtd. 27/4/2018 shows that application for substitution of legal heirs dtd. 18/4/2017 was listed for hearing on 5/7/2018. Perhaps, the case did not come up for hearing on this date and again on 28/9/2018, this application was listed for hearing on 16/10/2018. However, as per order dtd. 18/12/2020, the Appeal has been listed for final hearing on 22/3/2021. The respondent has not placed on record any order of the State Commission showing whether application dtd. 18/4/2017 which was already pending before the State Commission has been disposed of by the State Commission or not. Prima facie, the reasoning given by the State Commission in its order dtd. 22/3/2021 for abatement of Appeal i.e. failure of the Appellant to replace the legal heirs appears to be wrong. Hence, we find a material irregularity in the order of the State Commission in this regard.