Kerala

StateCommission

RP/11/32

LIC OF INDIA,TRIVANDRUM - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.SARASAMMA - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.KALKURA

30 Jun 2011

ORDER

 
Revision Petition No. RP/11/32
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/03/2011 in Case No. CC/05/371 of District Thiruvananthapuram)
 
1. LIC OF INDIA,TRIVANDRUM
BRANCH MANAGER,KILIMANNOR
TRIVANDRUM
KERALA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. J.SARASAMMA
GANAPATHI VILASOM,KUMMIL,KADAKKAL
KOLLAM
KERALA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

REVISION 32/2011

ORDER DATED 30.6.2011

PRESENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU      --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           --  MEMBER

 

1.      Branch Manager,                                      

LIC of India, Kilimanoor,

Thiruvananthapuram.                       --   REV.PETITIONERS

2.      Senior Divisional Manager

LIC of India, Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram.                                                      

     (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

 

                   Vs.

 

J.Sarasamma,

Ganapathy Vilasom, Kummil,                   --  RESPONDENT

Kadakkal, Kollam.

                                                                                                         

                                                ORDER    

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

 

          The revision petitioners are the opposite parties/LIC of India in OP.371/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The order sought to be revised is the one in IA.38/2011 dismissing the application of the revision petitioner to re-open the evidence and for permission to cross examine the complainant.

          2. The Forum has dismissed the application on   the ground  that the revision petitioner was absent  when the complainant was examined and further the complainant  is  a lady aged 84.  Further there is a direction from this Commission to dispose of the matter as early as   possible at any rate  within six months. 

          3. The OP is of the year 2005.  We find that it is also seen from the order that the issue     can be decided without the oral evidence.  Hence, we find that there is no patent illegality in the order.  All the same, we find that the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioners/opposite party’s evidence was also closed and he could not got marked the documents.  In the circumstances, the Forum is directed to re-open the matter and permit the opposite party to adduce evidence and dispose the case on merits at the earliest.

          4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.

          The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

 

 

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 

 

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER

 

 

 
 
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]
PRESIDENT

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.