Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/05/1529

SANYOGITA P. CHAVAN, - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NASHIK DIVISION OFFICE, - Opp.Party(s)

--

27 Jan 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/05/1529
 
1. SANYOGITA P. CHAVAN,
R/O 208, SONA SHOPPING CENTRE, TILAK PATH, GAJMAL, NASHIK.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, NASHIK DIVISION OFFICE,
JEEVAN PRAKASH, R.G. GADKARI CHOWK NASHIK-2
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Ms.Smita Gaidhani, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
 Mr.H.B. Takke, Advocate, proxy for Mr.Milind More, Advocate for the Respondent.
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

 

(1)                This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29.03.2005 passed in Consumer Complaint No.142/2004, Smt.sanyogita P. Chavan & Anr. V/s. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik.

 

(2)                The consumer complaint stood dismissed and aggrieved by the same this appeal is preferred and since there is a delay of 62 days in filing this appeal, the application for condonation of the delay as per Misc.Application No.1529/2005 is filed.

 

(3)                The reason given by the Applicant/Appellant No.1 - Mrs.Sanyogita P. Chavan, is that her husband Applicant/Appellant No.2 who is in service at Jodhpur Dental College was unable to get leave to meet his family and therefore, Applicant No.1 who is wife of the Applicant No.2 had gone to Jodhpur, Rajasthan along with their family members to meet Applicant No.2.  In her absence the impugned order was delivered at her house.  Therefore, only on returning home, Applicant No.1 – Sanyogita Chavan, saw the certified copy of the order.   She had gone through it and thereafter took immediate steps to prefer this appeal.   There is no rebuttal to these facts.  We find the delay is satisfactorily explained.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

 

    (i)               Misc.Application No.1529/2005  filed for condonation of delay is allowed.

 

  (ii)               Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

 

(iii)               In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.

 

 

Pronounced on 27th January, 2012.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde]
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.