Chandigarh

DF-I

MA/71/2010

Tilak Raj Pathak - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Comapny - Opp.Party(s)

27 May 2010

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 71 of 2010
1. Tilak Raj PathakChd. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 27 May 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.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Misc. Application No.71 of 2010 in

Complaint Case No: 1597 of 2009

 

Tilak Raj Pathak       Vs.          National Insurance Company

                                               

Present:   Sh.Vinod Mahendru,Advocate for Applicant/OP Insurance Company.

 

                                                ORDER

1]           As per order dated 12.5.2010, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. The present application has been moved by Counsel for OP Insurance Company for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 12.5.2010 and marking the presence of the OP. His contention is that the complaint was decided on 12.5.2010 whereas the date for arguments was given to the applicant counsel as 19.5.2010.

2]           We have heard the learned counsel for OP Insurance Company. We have closely examined the main file and find that Sh.Vinod Mahendru, Advocate for OP was present only on 8.3.2010. Thereafter, he absented himself on 19.3.2010, 1.4.2010, 20.4.2010 and finally on 12.5.2010 which was the date for final arguments. Therefore, he has been not only absent on 12.5.2010 but on earlier three occasions also. In view of this, the application made by him stating that the date for arguments was given to him as 19.5.2010 and whereas the matter was decided on 12.5.2010 is incorrect. His application on this ground alone deserves rejection.

3]           Further, we are of the opinion that after the disposal of the complaint, this Forum is functus officio and has no power to modify or re-draft the order dated 12.5.2010. The aforesaid view is fortified by an authority of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal reported in I (2010) CPJ 537 titled “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Bai”, in which it has been clearly stated as under:-

 “Forum functus officio, not empowered to entertain same - Only remedy was through appeal” 

 

4]           In view of the above, the present application is accordingly dismissed.

5]           Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

 

 

 

27.05.2010      (MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA)      (RAJINDER SINGH GILL)       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

                          MEMBER                                                     MEMBER                                              PRESIDING MEMBER     



DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER ,