NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/803/2010

D.P. KARAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. NIRAV K. MAJMUDAR

21 Apr 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 803 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 01/02/2010 in Appeal No. 17/2009 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. D.P. KARAI4, Patel Colony, Behind St. Anns SchoolJamnagarGujarat ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Registered Office ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra - Kurla ComplexMumbai - 51Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 21 Apr 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.

Order dated 1.02.10 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) by which the Miscellaneous Application moved by the Petitioner seeking permission to cross-examine to the surveyor, Mr. Ashok Mahohar Gawarikar was rejected, is sought to be challenged in these proceedings. ..2.. 2. We have the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Varadarajan, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has rightly pointed out that the application moved by the complainant was nothing but an abuse of the process of the fora because despite the prayer of the complainant having been allowed and opportunity granted to serve a set of interrogatories on the surveyor for answering the same, the complainant failed to avail that opportunity and moved the application for cross-examination of the surveyor. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the scope of the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, i.e, it being summary in nature, we are of the opinion that the first order passed by the State Commission granting permission to the complainant/petitioner to serve a set of the interrogatories on the above named surveyor, was quite justified and would have adequately met the end of justice if the set of interrogatories had been served on the surveyor. Therefore, without interfering with the impugned order, we permit the petitioner to serve a set of interrogatories on the above named surveyor within four weeks from today and on doing so the surveyor shall answer the ..3.. interrogatories within three weeks thereafter. However, if it is shown on record that the answers to the interrogatories did not serve the purpose and the requisite information/clarification has not been elicited from the answers given by the surveyor, it would be open for the State Commission to consider any prayer, if made by the complainant, for cross-examination of the above named surveyor without getting influenced by our observations. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of. Dasti to both the parties.



......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER