Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/16/2010

SMTI. PURNIMA BHUYAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

SRI DINESH SAIKIA

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

FINAL ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DIBRUGARH
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/2010
( Date of Filing : 13 Sep 2010 )
 
1. SMTI. PURNIMA BHUYAN
R/O CHELLENG GAON, P.O.- KALIAPANI, P.S.- NAHARKATIA
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
2. SRI DIBYAJYOTI BHUYA
R/O CHELLENG GAON, P.O.- KALIAPANI, P.S.- NAHARKATIA,
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
3. SRI MANASHJYOTI BHUYAN
R/O CHELLENG GAON, P.O.- KALIAPANI, P.S.- NAHARKATIA,
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
4. SRI SATYA RANJAN BHUYAN
R/O CHELLENG GAON, P.O.- KALIAPANI, P.S.- NAHARKATIA,
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA.
JORHAT DIVISION
2. BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA.
NAHARKATIA BRANCH.
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  SHRI P. R. KOTOKY PRESIDENT
  Kritanjali Kalita MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 Mrs. Bidisha Barman, Advocate for the Opp. Party 0
 Mrs. Bidisha Barman, Advocate for the Opp. Party 0
Dated : 11 Aug 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Complainant is absent without any step. O.P. No. 1 & 2 are present through their advocate. On perusal of order sheets and case record it is seen that the case was registered as C.P. case No.16/2010 in the year 2010 and the case was fixed for judgement on 01.12.2011. Minutes scrutiny of the orders it is reflected that the complainant submitted her evidence on affidavit on 25.05.2011 and the Forum accepted her evidence without any exhibit which was mentioned in the order of that date. Opp. Parties in this case filed their evidence on 09.08.2011 and filed their written argument on 19.10.2011, but the complainant failed to submit her written argument for which the case was fixed for judgement on 01.12.2011. The judgement was delayed and complainant remained absent for a long period for which the Forum/Commission filed the case vide order dtd. 09.06.2016. On 13.06.2017 as prayed by the complainant the case was restored to file. Again the case was fixed for judgement on 19.01.2018 vide order dtd. 15.12.2017. From 19.01.2018 complainant is remaining absent without step till this date. In absence of the complainant and non-production of policy documents as exhibits along with evidence, it is also very difficult for the Commission to pass any reasonable judgement. Moreover, non-appearance of the complainant for more than 5(five) years shows her reluctancy to proceed with the case.

On the basis of above facts and circumstances, the Commission is pleased to dismiss this complaint case for default of complainant.

Case dismissed.

Keep C/R with disposed case records.

 
 
[ SHRI P. R. KOTOKY]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Kritanjali Kalita]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.