NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3106/2009

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAWAL SINGH SANCHETI - Opp.Party(s)

DR. MANISH SINGHVI

22 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3106 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 05/03/2009 in Appeal No. 987/2005 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.Through District CollectorChitorgarh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. NAWAL SINGH SANCHETIR/o Kapasan, Teh.KapasanChitorgarh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Jan 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.

In this revision filed by the opposite parties with a delay of 78 days, challenge is to the order dated 5.03.09 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur allowing appeal and directing the petitioners to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint to the respondent/complainant. Respondent/Complainant is entitled to free medical after his retirement from service as part of the condition of service and was sanctioned by the Trust created by the petitioners a sum of Rs.50,000/- for meeting the medical expenses on 05.02.02. Bye pass surgery on the respondent was conducted at AIIMS on 10.04.02 and a sum of Rs.55,000/- was spent for which bill was issued by this hospital. Claim made was rejected by the petitioners on the ground that pensionary diary had not been renewed. Said sanction did not impose the ..2.. restriction that bye pass surgery was to be performed before 31.03.02. In this backdrop, also having heard Shri Devesh we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, we make it clear that this order will not be treated as precedent for other cases.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER