Hon’ble Mr. Nitya Sundar Trivedi, Presiding Member

Order No. : 02

Date : 05.01.2023

Ld. Advocate for the revisionist referred to order No. 17 of District Commission dated 11.03.2020 and sought application of Section 17 (B) stating that order of the District Commission was not proper.  

He also stated that the advocate who appeared at the District Commission for the insurance company (OP1) had no instruction from the insurance company to represent them at the District Commission.

It appears ex-parte Order was issued against OP 1 (Insurance Company) but no ex-parte Order was passed against OP 2 (SBI, the mother concern of OP 1).

It also appears that evidence was sought from OP 2 (the mother concern) and the last Order in this respect is filing of evidence-in-chief by the complainant.

I see no adverse order has been finally passed by the District Commission and no irregularity or beyond jurisdiction steps has been taken the District Commission.

True, OP 1 did not get opportunity to file show cause for their advocate related problem. So, at this stage, in my opinion, there is no need to inference into works of the District Commission. OP1 may come for Appeal against the Order of the District Commission in case they are actually affected or they feel they are actually affected for not getting opportunity to file show cause, after the Order of that case at the District Commission Level.

The Revisional Petition prayer is dismissed.