View 1231 Cases Against Panchayat
SMT. SUNITA filed a consumer case on 24 Feb 2015 against CEO , JILA PANCHAYAT in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/14/1563 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Mar 2023.
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1563 OF 2015
(Arising out of order dated 01.12.2015 passed in Execution Case No.36/2014 by District Commission, Jabalpur)
1. SMT. JIGNA BHATIA,
D/O LATE SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR BHATIA,
W/O SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA,
R/O 6/74, GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY,
PARAMATTA, NSW, 2150 AUSTRALIA.
2. SMT. VAISHALI BHATIA,
W/O LATE SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR BHATIA
D/O SHRI YADNESH CHOUNKAR,
R/O 529, ALANDELA AVENUE,
LOS ENGINS, CA 90036 THROUGH
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KU.KANTI BHATIA
3. KU. KANTI BHATIA,
D/O LATE SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR BHATIA,
R/O B-9, TIRUPATI COMPLEX, NEAR SHARDA TALKIES,
JABALPUR. … APPELLANTS.
Versus
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BRANCH-495, MARHATAAL, JABALPUR
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER.
2. MID SAVE HEALTH CARE LIMITED,
F-701, A. LADU SARAI, BEHING GOLF COURSE,
NEW DELHI- 110 030
3. MID SAVE HEALTH CARE LIMITED,
221, ZONE-I, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL-462 011 …. RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1564 OF 2015
(Arising out of order dated 01.12.2015 passed in Execution Case No.34/2014 & 21/2015 by District Commission, Jabalpur)
SMT. JIGNA BHATIA & ORS … APPELLANTS.
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS.
-2-
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1565 OF 2015
(Arising out of order dated 01.12.2015 passed in Execution Case No.35/2014 by District Commission, Jabalpur)
SMT. JIGNA BHATIA & ORS … APPELLANTS.
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1566 OF 2015
(Arising out of order dated 01.12.2015 passed in Execution Case No.20/2015 by District Commission, Jabalpur)
SMT. JIGNA BHATIA & ORS … APPELLANTS.
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1567 OF 2015
(Arising out of order dated 01.12.2015 passed in Execution Case No.19/2015 by District Commission, Jabalpur)
SMT. JIGNA BHATIA & ORS … APPELLANTS.
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE :
HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER
HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
None for the respondent no.2 and 3.
-3-
O R D E R
(Passed On 16.02.2023)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:
Aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.1563/2015 unless otherwise stated.
2. This appeal by the complainants/appellants is directed against the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur (For short ‘District Commission’) in Execution Case No.36/2014 whereby the District Commission disposed of the execution application.
3. The complainants/appellants have filed aforesaid execution application seeking compliance of the order dated 30.09.2014 passed in CC No.08/2010 whereby the District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties that after rescheduling the bills on the basis of critical sum insured for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- remaining amount be paid to the complainants. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs Rs.1,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the complainants/appellants argued that the District Commission did not consider this aspect that in the present case
-4-
as per the order of the District Commission, the opposite parties have to pay Rs.1,26,000/- and in all the cases the opposite parties have to pay Rs.5,39,029/- whereas the opposite parties have paid only Rs.2,36,000/- in all the cases. The District Commission has committed grave error in not penalizing the opposite parties and dismissing the execution application.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties supporting the impugned order argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the execution application as the opposite parties have already deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the District Commission in compliance of the original order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order as also the record, we observe that vide order dated 19.05.2015, passed in execution proceedings, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to produce the calculation record to demonstrate that in compliance of the order passed by the District Commission in C.C.Nos.537/2010, 211/2012, 08/2010, 393/2011, 248/2010 and 117/2014, how they had deposited Rs.2,06,000/- before the District Commission. Thereafter the matter was fixed on 10.06.2015 and adjourned to 02.07.2015, 12.08.2015, 13.08.2015, 01.09.2015 and 15.09.2015 to produce the record. On 23.09.2015 again the opposite parties were directed to produce the record as directed earlier and the matter was fixed on
-5-
16.10.2015 but no record was produced and the case was adjourned from time to time i.e. on 26.10.2015, 16.11.2015, 23.11.2015 and ultimately on 01.12.2015 the execution application was dismissed holding that since the opposite parties have deposited the amount in compliance of the original order nothing survives in the execution application but the fact regarding direction to the opposite parties to produce record remained undecided.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to examine the authenticity of the said record to be produced by the opposite parties as directed by the District Commission on 19.05.2015 that how the opposite parties have deposited only a sum of Rs.2,06,000/- only in total towards all the cases as mentioned aforesaid.
8. In this view of the matter, the case is remanded to the District Commission for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 27.03.2023.
10. The opposite parties are directed to produce the record as directed by the District Commission.
11. The District Commission is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of passing the order by the District Commission.
-6-
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order is set-aside and this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs of this appeal.
13. This order be placed in record of Appeal no. 1563/2015 and a copy be placed in record of Appeal no. 1564/2015 to 1567/2015.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) (D. K. Shrivastava)
Presiding Member Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.