Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RA/23/84

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

KALICHARAN SHARMA, S/O SHRI SANTCHARAN SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT TIWARI

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                          REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2023

 (Arising out of order dated 24.02.2023 passed in First Appeal No.744/2015 by this Commission)

 

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                                  …          APPLICANT

 

Versus

                 

KALICHARAN SHARMA                                                                                      …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :      MEMBER

                    

                                      O R D E R

 

18.07.2023

 

            Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

            None for the respondent.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

                   This review application by the applicant has been filed against the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 744/2015.

2.                Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the aforesaid matter was listed before this Commission for final hearing and subsequently final order was passed by this Commission.  He argued that in fact the respondent/complainant, who was the appellant in the aforesaid appeal has filed an affidavit of Surveyor Vijay Jain but in the order in the first line of paragraph 7 it has been wrongly mentioned that ‘Learned counsel for the

-2-

respondent instead of Learned counsel for the appellant.’ Similarly in third line of paragraph 8 & and last line of paragraph 9 of the order ‘opposite party-insurance company has been mentioned instead of complainant/appellant’. He argued that this review application deserves to be allowed and in place of opposite party/respondent-insurance company, the complainant/appellant is to be mentioned.

3.                Section 50 of the Act of 2019 which is relevant for the purposes for deciding the issue involved in the case is reproduced hereunder:-

50. Review by State Commission in certain cases- The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.

 

4.                Bare perusal of the aforesaid section makes it clear that an order can be reviewed by the State Commission when there is an error apparent on the face of the record.  It is apparently clear that the order reflects opposite party/respondent-insurance company in place of complainant/appellant. It appears to be a typographical/clerical error in the order and the same deserves to be reviewed by this Commission.

5.                Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, we allow this review application. Let in the first line of paragraph 7 of the order dated 24.02.2023 passed in First Appeal No.744/2015, ‘appellant’ be reflected in place of

-3-

‘respondent’, as also in fourth line of paragraph 8, ‘complainant-appellant’ be reflected in place of ‘opposite party-insurance company’ and in last line of paragraph 9 ‘complianant/appellant’ be reflected in place of ‘opposite party/respondent-insurance company’.  Necessary correction be carried out in the order which is being challenged in pursuance of this review application.  Let the corrected order along with copy of this order be placed in record of appeal and its copy be supplied to the parties. Let corrected copy of order as also copy of this order be also sent to the District Commission.

6.                With the aforesaid directions, this review application stands allowed with no order as to costs.

 

                      (A. K. Tiwari)               (D. K. Shrivastava)  

               Presiding Member                    Member