STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/6/RP/40/2025 (Against the Order dated 4th August 2025 in Appeal DC/71/CC/393/2024 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panipat)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PRESENT ADDRESS - HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT G.T. ROAD, PANIPAT THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER.CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus MANJU PRESENT ADDRESS - AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS WD/O PARSHANT NOTNA ALIAS SANDEEP, AADHAR NO.6197 3952 6818.PANIPAT,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

T P S MANN , PRESIDENT MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER MANJULA , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

SHRI NITIN GUPTA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 11/07/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA Revision Petition No.40 of 2025 Date of Institution/Filing:24.05.2025 Date of Decision:11.07.2025 United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at G.T.Road, Panipat through its Branch Manager.

Petitioner now represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office at SCO No.123-124, Sector4 17-B, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Party No.1-Petitioner Versus

1. Manju aged about 30 years Widow of Parshant Notna @ Sandeep.

2. Daizy (minor) aged about 6 years D/o Parshant Notna @ Sandeep through her mother/natural guardian i.e. respondent No.1 Manju.

3. Bhvy (minor) aged about 10 years S/o Parshant Notna @ Sandeep through his mother/natural guardian i.e. respondent No.1 Manju.

4. Jag Roshan aged about 60 years S/o Mangal Singh.

5. Mukesh aged about 54 years W/o Jag Roshan Respondents No.1 to 5 is resident of H.No.25, Opp. Sector-25, Near Laxmi Garden, Malik Enclave, Panipat.

…..Complainants-Respondent Nos.1 to 5

6. Alliance Assure Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 29, HSVP Shopping Complex, Sector-39, Behind Unitech Cyber Park, Gurugram (Haryana)-122003 through its Manager/Authorised representative.

…..Opposite Party No.2-Respondent No.6 CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member Mrs.Manjula, Member Present:- Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.

O R D E R

S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Delay of 09 days in filing the revision is condoned.

2. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 13.02.2025 and 19.05.2025 passed in Consumer Complaint No.393 of 2024 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, whereby OP-petitioner was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 13.02.2025 and order dated 19.05.2025 whereby the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 13.02.2025 was dismissed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Panipat and the case was adjourned to 04.08.2025 for evidence of complainant.

3. The argument has been advanced by Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance true copies of various orders including the impugned ones were gone through and has also been properly perused and examined.

4. While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for the revisionist that notice was duly served, however the said notice/summons was inadvertently misplaced and found only on 31.03.2025 during the finalization of financial year closing work. The petitioner immediately informed the panel advocate to check the status of the consumer complaint, the petitioner’s advocate enquired from the learned District Consumer Commission, Panipat and came to know that petitioner/OP No.1 was already proceeded against ex parte on 13.02.2025. The counsel for the petitioner had moved the said application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 13.02.2025, which was also dismissed on 19.05.2025. It is further averred that non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned District Consumer Commission, Panipat was thus neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the orders dated 13.02.2025 and 19.05.2025 be set aside and permission be granted to appear and