ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA Revision Petition No.44 of 2024 Date of Institution/Filing:12.06.2024 Date of Decision:10.12.2024 Suresh Kumar Yadav, House No.602, Sector 15-1, Gurugram (Haryana).

…..Petitioner Versus HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited through its territory Manager, SCO-32, Sector 15-II, Gurugram.

…..Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member Mrs.Manjula, Member Present:- Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav-petitioner in person Shri Karan Sharma proxy counsel for Shri S.C.Thatai, counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in Consumer Complaint No.93 of 2023 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, whereby evidence of the complainant was closed by court order and the complaint was adjourned for filing evidence of the OP. 2. The arguments have been advanced by Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav-petitioner in person as well as Shri Karan Sharma proxy counsel for Shri S.C.Thatai, counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the original file including whatever the material has been brought on record by the revisionist has also been properly perused and examined.

3. Petitioner-Suresh Kumar Yadav- petitioner in person argued that complaint filed by him was admitted and notice issued to respondent for 02.05.2023. Further argued that on 13.06.2023, the respondent filed reply and complaint was adjourned to 17.10.2023 for evidence of complainant. The complainant prepared and got attested the affidavit from Oath Commissioner and gave it to his Advocate for tendering his evidence but having some matter in Civil court, the advocate sought adjournment, which was allowed and the complaint adjourned to 19.02.2024. On 19.02.2024, the President of the District Commission was on leave and case was fixed for 14.03.2024. On 14.03.2024, the complainant sought adjournment, which was allowed and case was fixed for 09.05.2024 for the same purpose. On 09.05.2024, the complainant was not informed by the office of his advocate about the date, he could not appear on 09.05.2024. However, the counsel for the complainant appeared and sought adjournment, which was not allowed and evidence of complainant was closed by court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 be set aside and complainant may be allowed be given an opportunity to furnish evidence by way of affidavit.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that despite availing five opportunities, the complainant did not tender evidence by way of affidavit. The learned District Consumer Commission rightly passed the order dated 09.05.2024.

5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the material on record, it is true that evidence of the complainant was closed by court order, but it was not according to principle of natural justice because the complainant prepared the affidavit in evidence on 24.1.2024. It is clear that the complainant wanted to tender his evidence, but, due to some matter in civil court, the advocate sought adjournment, which was not allowed. It is golden principle of law that proper and an effective opportunity should be afforded to the complainant before deciding the case on merits. The OP is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist- complainant is afforded an opportunity to lead evidence itself before the learned District Consumer Commission, so in these circumstances, proceedings dated 09.05.2024 initiated against complainant-petitioner is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance before the District Consumer Commission, Gurgaon. The cost will be deposited by the complainant-petitioner with Legal Services Authority, Gurugram. Let the petitioner be afforded