NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/393/2010

ANITA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. (MRS.) SHAKUNTALA BANALE - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SHARAN DEV THAKUR

22 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 15 Jan 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/393/2010
(Against the Order dated 29/10/2009 in Appeal No. 1959&2462/2008 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. ANITAD. No. 393, Bada Building, Rajendra Colony, II StageBellary - 583104 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. DR. (MRS.) SHAKUNTALA BANALEBanale Hospital, S.B. Temple RoadBulbarga - 585101 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr.Vineet Malhotra, Advocate for MR. SHARAN DEV THAKUR, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Mar 2010
ORDER

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.

          Petitioner as well as the respondent had filed Appeals No. 2462 and 1959/2008 respectively before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed Appeal No.1959/2008 filed by the respondent and remitted the case to the District Forum with certain directions. Appeal No.2462/2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in view of the order passed in Appeal No.1959/2008. 

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that State Commission should not have dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in view of the order passed in Appeal No.1959/2008.  State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as the case was being remitted back to the District Forum.  It is made clear that against the fresh order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner, if so aggrieved, would be at liberty to file a fresh appeal before the State Commission.

We have passed this order in the absence of the respondent since it is only a clarificatory order.  But, if the respondent is aggrieved by this order, she would be at liberty to file an application for revival of the Revision Petition.

Since this is an old case, we direct the District Forum to decide it within 6 months from the date of the first appearance of the parties.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER