LIST OF DATE AND EVENTS

On 27.1.2012, the respondent herein had filed a complaint under section 11 of

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating therein that the petitioner is a
consumer of Respondent.

On 17/8/2012, when the matter came for hearing before the Consumer Forum,
the Consumer Forum has directed the OP to be proceeded against ex-parte.

On 20-01-2015, Ms. Richa Jindal, Advocate noticed the case in the Cause List
of the Court concerned and informed the Regional Office concerned and they
searched their own records for enquiries.

In first week of March, 2015, the said Ms. Richa Jindal, Advocate was
instructed by the Petitioner to inspect the records of Court and apply for the
Certified Copies of relevant records, where-after the Petitioners also searched
for its own records for any service of notice.

On 17-04-2015, the petitioner was supplied the Certified Copies of the

impugned Order and then it came to know about the pendency of said matter
and ex-parte order. Thereafter the petitioner herein instructed the Counsel to
file the present Revision Petition.

Hence this Revision Petition before this court.

 BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

Revision Petition No. ……of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNIQUE TOURISM PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

REGIONAL OFFICE – 1, 4TH FLOOR.
JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING
NEW DELHI-110 001 PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNIQUE TOURISM PVT. LTD.
THROUGH MR. BHAVENDRA JHA
S/O SHRI B.S. JHA
R/O D-129, KRISHNA PARK,
DEVLI ROAD, KHANPUR
NEW DELHI RESPONDENT
FILED BY

Petitioner
National Insurance Company Limited

THROUGH

Place : New Delhi

Date : Richa Jindal
Advocate
B-7/86/1, D.D. A. Flats
Safdar Jung Enclave
New Delhi 110029
 BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

Revision Petition No. ……of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNIQUE TOURISM PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. List of date and events

2. Memo of parties

3. Revision Petition u/s 17(b) of the

Consumer Protection Act,1986
alongwith affidavit

4. Certified copy of Impugned judgment/

Order dated 17th August, 2012 passed by
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

5. Certified copy of complaint.

6. Vakalatnama

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

FILED BY

Petitioner
National Insurance Company Limited

THROUGH

Place : New Delhi

Date : Richa Jindal
Advocate
B-7/86/1, D.D. A. Flats
Safdar Jung Enclave
New Delhi 110029
 BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :
ITO, NEW DELHI

Revision Petition No. ……of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

REGIONAL OFFICE – 1, 4TH FLOOR.
JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING
NEW DELHI-110 001 PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNIQUE TOURISM PVT. LTD.

THROUGH MR. BHAVENDRA JHA
S/O SHRI B.S. JHA
R/O D-129, KRISHNA PARK,
DEVLI ROAD, KHANPUR
NEW DELHI RESPONDENT

REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 17 (b) OF THE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 1986 DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
17tH AUGUST 2012 PASSED BY HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA-II,
NEW DELHI

To

The Hon’ble President and His

Companion Members of the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :

1. That the petitioner is filing this Revision Petition against Order dated
17.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Qutub
Institutional Area - II, New Delhi in Complaint No. CC-54/2012 titled as. Unique
Tourism Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company limited thereby OP
proceeded against exparte . The impugned Order is reproduced below:
“ Case No. 54/2002
17.08.2012
Present Sh. Vikas Yadav, counsel for Complainant and none for the OP.
OP is personally served and its receipt seen. Case taken up twice but no
 one appeared on behalf of the Ops and therefore, OP is proceeded
against exparte. Now for exparte evidence, the case is adjourned to 10-
09-2012.
X X Sd/-
Member Member President”

2. That the brief facts leadings to filing of the present Revision Petition are as
under:
I] That on 27-01-2012, the Respondent herein is purported to have filed a
complaint under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating
therein that the petitioner is a consumer of Respondent.

ii] That thereafter on 17/8/2012, when the matter came for hearing before the
Consumer Forum, the Consumer Forum has directed the OP to be proceeded
against ex-parte.

iii] That it is respectfully submitted that now the said matter was listed before the
DCDRF on 28.8.2015 for final arguments. The petitioner herein came to know
about the ex-parte proceedings only on 20-01-2015, when their counsel was
present in the forum for attending some other matter. Thereafter the said
Counsel herein contacted National Insurance Company and informed about
the pendency of the case who thereafter instructed their counsel to apply for
the certified copy of the same. The counsel applied for the certified copy which
was received on 17.4.2015. Copy of the above order is enclosed herewith as
Annexure A-1.

3. That after feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, and having no other
alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble
Commission for justice. The petitioner prays for leave of this Hon’ble
Commission to file Revision Petition against the impugned order of the District
Consumer Forum on the following amongst other:

GROUNDS :

A: Because the Forum has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity
and passed the impugned order mechanically.

B: Because the impugned order is against the principal of Natural Justice, as

the petitioner was never served with the notice.
C. Because the Learned Forum has exercised the Jurisdiction with material
irregularity by deeming the Petitioner herein, who is an Insurance
Company, as a person, while dealing with the case on 17-8-2012 by
holding that the OP, i.e., the Petitioner herein had been served personally,
while no such service of Notice was or could be made personally on a
juristic person. In any case no service was ever affected. No notice for any
such case fixed for 17-08-2012 was ever served upon the Petitioner
Insurance Company in the impugned case.

D. Because the Consumer Forum has committed a great error of law while
passing the impugned order in the absence of proof of any service on
record.

E. Because the Learned Forum has gravely erred in not considering that the
Petitioner herein was duly represented before it regularly through its
Counsel in various cases.

F. Because the Learned Forum has gravely erred and has exercised the
Jurisdiction not vested in it by law by passing the impugned Order dated
17-08-2012 by proceeding Exparte, when the Forum was not even fully
constituted. The impugned Order is purported to have been passed by the
President alone in the absence of the other members and is prejudicial to
the Petitioner herein, which is a Public Body constituted under a Statute.

G. Because non appearance on behalf of the Petitioner Insurance Company

is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason mentioned above.

4. That the Petitioner herein came to know of the pendency of the above case
and the proceedings therein being exparte on 20-01-2015, when the above
case was listed before the Forum for Exparte Arguments and was noticed
by its Counsel, Ms. Richa Jindal, Advocate, who was present in the forum
for attending some other matter, immediately took note of the same and
contacted the concerned Regional Office of the Petitioner. The enquiries
later revealed that no notice of any such case was ever served and as
such the Petitioner instructed the said Counsel to look into the same and
obtain necessary Copies of the Orders as well as the complaint.

5. That the Counsel for the Petitioner applied for the Certified Copy of the
impugned Order, which was supplied on 17-04-2015 and the Petitioner
came to know of the contents of the same and made enquiries in its office
and the present Revision Petition is being filed without any loss of time and
 is well within time. However, for abundant caution an Application under
Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 read with
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being filed herewith.

6. That the impugned Order is without jurisdiction and in any case passed in
clear wrong exercise of Jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

7. That the present Revision Petition is being filed without any inordinate or
improper delay and is well within time.

8. That the petitioner reserves its right to add, amend or alter the grounds of
revision at later stage, with the permission of this Hon’ble Commission.

PRAYER

The petitioner, therefore, prays that the record of the Delhi Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, South Delhi District be called for and impugned
order dated 17-08-2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Qutub Institutional Area – II, New Delhi and the proceedings taken
thereafter be quashed and / or set aside.
The concerned Forum be directed to permit the Petitioner herein to join
the proceedings from the stage as was on 17-08-2012 in accordance with law
and to file its Reply / W.S. to the Complaint as per law.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in
the circumstances of the case may also be granted.

Cost of the litigation may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner and
against the Respondent.

FILED BY

Petitioner
National Insurance Company Limited

THROUGH

Place : New Delhi

Date : Richa Jindal
Advocate
B-7/86/1, D.D. A. Flats
Safdar Jung Enclave
New Delhi 110029
 BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION :
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN NEW DELHI

Case No. of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNIQUE TOURISM PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, ………………………, Manager, National

Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office :1, Legal Cell, Jeewan Bharti
Building, 4 t h Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :

1. That the deponent above named is the manager and authorized

representative of the appellant company and well versed with the
facts and circumstances of the case and competent therefore to
depose the present affidavit.

2. That the appellant has filed the accompanying Revision Petition

under section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. The contents of the same may be read, part and parcel of this
affidavit and are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity, and the
same has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions
explained vernacular to me as the same are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this ………day of May, 2015 that the contents of paras of
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :
ITO, VIKAS BHAWAN,NEW DELHI

Revision Petition No. ……of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNIQUE TOURISM PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER REGULATION 14 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS, 2005 READ WITH SECTION 5
OF THE LIMITATION ACT

To

The Hon’ble President and His

Companion Members of the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :

1. That the petitioner is filing this Revision Petition against Order dated
17.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Qutub
Institutional Area - II, New Delhi in Complaint No. CC-54/2012 titled as. Unique
Tourism Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company limited thereby OP
proceeded against exparte . The impugned Order is reproduced below:
“ Case No. 54/2002
17.08.2012
Present Sh. Vikas Yadav, counsel for Complainant and none for the OP.
OP is personally served and its receipt seen. Case taken up twice but no
one appeared on behalf of the Ops and therefore, OP is proceeded
against exparte. Now for exparte evidence, the case is adjourned to 10-
09-2012.
X X Sd/-
Member Member President”

2. That on 27-01-2012, the Respondent herein is purported to have filed a

complaint under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating
 therein that the petitioner is a consumer of Respondent and the same is
pending disposal before the Learned Forum.

3. That thereafter on 17/8/2012, when the matter came for hearing before the
Consumer Forum, the Consumer Forum has directed the OP to be proceeded
against ex-parte, without the service of the notice thereof to the Petitioner
herein.

4. That it is respectfully submitted that now the said matter was listed before the
DCDRF on 28.8.2015 for final arguments. The petitioner herein came to know
about the ex-parte order only on 20th January, 2015.

5. Thereafter the petitioner instructed their counsel to apply for the certified copy
of the same. The counsel applied for the certified copy which was received on
17.4.2015. Copy of the above order is being filed herewith.

6. That after feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, and having no other
alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble
Commission for justice.

7. That the Petitioner herein came to know of the pendency of the above case
and the proceedings therein being exparte on 20-01-2015, when the above
case was listed before the Forum for Exparte Arguments and was noticed by
its Counsel, Ms. Richa Jindal, Advocate on the Cause List, who immediately
took note of the same and contacted the concerned Regional Office of the
Petitioner. The enquiries later revealed that no notice of any such case was
ever served and as such the Petitioner instructed the said Counsel to look into
the same and obtain necessary Copies of the Orders.

8. That the Counsel for the Petitioner applied for the Certified Copy of the
impugned Order, which was supplied on 17-04-2015 and the Petitioner came
to know of the contents of the same and made enquiries in its office and the
present Revision Petition is being filed without any loss of time and is well
within time. However, for abundant caution the present Application under
Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 read with Section
5 of the Limitation Act is being filed.

9. That there is sufficient and good cause for the non appearence and / or
absence of the Petitioner at the time of hearing on 17-8-2012. The Petitioner
came to know of the impugned Order on 17-04-2015, when it received the
certified Copies of the impugned Order and is well within time.
10. That the Petitioner is a statutory body engaged in the Insurance Business
under the Statute of the Central Government.

11. That the impugned Order is without jurisdiction and in any case passed in clear
wrong exercise of Jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside and the Petitioner
has a very good case.

12. That the present Revision Petition is being filed without any inordinate or
improper delay and is otherwise well within time.

13. That the petitioner reserves its right to add, amend or alter the grounds of
revision at later stage, with the permission of this Hon’ble Commission.

PRAYER

The petitioner, therefore, prays that the record of the Delhi Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, South Delhi District be called for and the delay, if
any, in filing the same be condoned.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in
the circumstances of the case may also be granted.

FILED BY

Petitioner
National Insurance Company Limited

THROUGH

Place : New Delhi

Date : Richa Jindal
Advocate
B-7/86/1, D.D. A. Flats
Safdar Jung Enclave
New Delhi 110029
BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION : ITO, VIKAS
BHAWAN NEW DELHI

Case No. of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNIQUE TOURISM PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, ………………………, Manager, National

Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office :1, Legal Cell, Jeewan Bharti
Building, 4 t h Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :

1. That the deponent above named is the manager and authorized

representative of the appellant company and well versed with the
facts and circumstances of the case and competent therefore to
depose the present affidavit.

2. That the appellant has filed the accompanying Application for

Condonation of Delay in filing the above Revision Petition and the
contents thereof are true and correct.

3. The contents of the same may be read, part and parcel of this
affidavit and are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity, and the
same has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the
same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this ………day of May, 2015 that the contents of paras of
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT