Jagrut Nagrik Through their Tgrustee and Secretary and Another Vs. Manager, New India Assurance Co. and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
c.p. act - section 24; comparative citation: 2014 (1) cpr 151 k.s. chaudhari, presiding member this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by gujarat state consumer disputes redressal commission, ahmedabad (in short, the state commission) in appeal no. 578 of 2011 “ jagrut nagrik and anr. vs. new india ass. co. ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of district forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before district forum for reimbursement of expenses incurred in treatment as complainant-2/petitioner no. 2 had obtained medi-claim policy. along with complaint, complainant filed application under section 24 of the c.p. act for condonation of delay. learned district forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as barred by limitation. learned state commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. none appeared for respondent no. 2 even after service. 4. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 1 finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his application under section 24 of the c.p. act filed before district forum has not been decided by learned district forum and erroneously complaint has been dismissed as barred by limitation and learned state commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to district forum. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that learned district forum has discussed and found that complaint was not within limitation, but admitted that application under section 24 of the c.p. act has not been decided. 6. apparently, complaint is time barred, but along with complaint, complainant has filed application under section 24 of the c.p. act for condonation of delay of 164 days in filing complaint. perusal of record clearly reveals that learned district forum has not decided this application. only after dismissal of application under section 24, complaint could have been dismissed as barred by limitation and learned district forum has committed error in dismissing complaint without disposal of application under section 24 of the c.p. act. learned state commission also committed error in dismissing appeal without looking the record and impugned order is liable to set aside. 7. consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 1.4.2012 passed by learned state commission in appeal no. 578 of 2011 “ jagrut nagrik and anr. vs. new india ass. co. ltd. and order of district forum dated 21.3.2011 passed in cma no.16/10 “ mr. p.v. murzani, managing trustee jagrut nagrik mandal and anr. vs. the new india ass. co. ltd. and anr. is set aside and matter is remanded back to district forum for deciding complaint after disposal of application under section 24 of the c.p. act filed by the petitioner before the district forum after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 8. parties are directed to appear before the district forum on 20.12.2013.