Orissa

Bargarh

MP/11/02

Sri. V.V.Satyanarayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S.C. Mujumdar with other Advocates

10 Sep 2014

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MP/11/02
In
 
1. Sri. V.V.Satyanarayan
son of V.V.Ratnam aged about 50 years, resident of Khairpali, Po. Larsara, Ps. Atabira, Dist. Bargarh
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Miss. Raj Laxmi Pattanaik PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE Mrs. Anjali Behera Member
 HONORABLE Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash Member
 
For the Appellant:Sri S.C. Mujumdar with other Advocates, Advocate
For the Respondent:
ORDER

Dt.10/09/2014

This order arises out of the petition filed by the Complainant/Petitioner Under Order-9, Rule-9 of Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the original C.C. No.16/2010 which was dismissed for default because of non-appearance of the Complainant as well as his Advocate on Dt.02/12/211, when the case was posted for hearing.

 

In his petition, U/O-9, Rule-9 of C.P.C, the Complainant has stated that, he failed to appear before this forum on account of personal illness and his Advocate also could not appear as because his Advocate was busy in the court of District Judge, Bargarh and could not reach to this court when the case was called for hearing. The absence of the Petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to his illness. In support of which, he has filed the Medical Certificate, which is attached to the case record.

 

Perused the petition along with the documents annexed.

 

Heard the matter.

 

On perusal, we find that in Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been enumerated, which are applicable in the proceeding under the Act. So far as other provisions are concerned, it appears that Civil Procedure Code has been applied to the proceedings before consumer forum only to a limited extent.

It is a settled law that provision U/O-9, Rule-9 CPC is not applicable in the proceedings of the consumer forum.

It is a settled law that District Forum has no power to review or recall modify any order passed by it.

 

On this point we rely on the decisions reported in 2011(9) SCC-541 in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Vrs Achyut Kasinath Karekar and another and also another decision reported in 2012 (3) CPR 273 (NC)- Bastar Jila Upabhakta Sanrakshan Samiti and another Vrs General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Jagdalpur.

 

Hence petition filed by the Complainant has no merits and here by rejected.

 

Misc. Case No.2/2011 is disposed off accordingly.

 

               Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                Sd/-

(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)        ( Smt. Anjali Behera)           (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnaik)

        M e m b e r.                           M e m b e r.                      P r e s i d e n t.  

 
 
[HONORABLE Miss. Raj Laxmi Pattanaik]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE Mrs. Anjali Behera]
Member
 
[HONORABLE Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash]
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.