Date of Filing: 20.12.2022.                                                           Date of Disposal: 17.05.2023.

Complainant- Sri Kalyan Dawn.     Vs.       O.P.- New Florance Nursing Home & Another

Order Date:17.05.2023. .

Today  is fixed for passing order in respect of M.A. case being No. 118/2022.

Ld. Advocates of both sides are present.

M.A. case being No. 118 of 2022 is taken up for passing order.

      The petitioner/complainant, on 20.12.2022 has filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for passing appropriate order mentioning Order No and date and orders and proceedings and Revision Petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution of the same and the Ld. Commission was pleased to take necessary steps by the complainant. It is further stated that from the orders of the case, it is clear that the OPs have filed their W/V and both the complainant and the OPs have filed their evidences and the complainant also replied the questionnaire so put by the OP No.2 though the OpNo.1 got opportunity to file questionnaire but they did not file the same and the Revision Petition has been disposed of for non-prosecution. The OPs also have not filed their replies in the instant case. During the proceedings of the case, the Proprietor of the OP No.2 has expired but the evidence part has already been completed. Though the complainant sent summons to the OP No.3, the same has been returned with the remarks “Door Closed” . As the evidence part of the case has already been completed by both the parties, the case may be fixed for argument for adjudication of the same on the basis of merit of the case.

      The copy of the petition has not been served.

      Ld. Advocate for the complainant has mentioned the order No. and date and the orders and proceedings in a nutshell in the M.A. case  but in Para No.3 of the petition he stated that during the proceedings of the instant case, the Proprietor of the OP no.2 has expired but their evidence part has already  completed  and the same . Though the complainant sent notices to the OP No.2 for three times, as per order of the Ld. Commission, those have been returned with the remarks as “Door Closed” . If it be the fact then it can be said that the notice has been served upon him when the complainant stated in the petition that the Proprietor of the OP No.2 has expired. The date of death has not been mentioned and no documentary evidence i.e the death certificate is also not forthcoming either from the side of the complainant or from the side of the OP No.2.

      In such circumstances, it is very difficult to pass appropriate order in respect of death of the OP No.2 , rather it can be said that the complainant may take appropriate step for filing death certificate of the Proprietor of  OP No.2.

      Accordingly, it is

                                                                         ORDERED

That the M.A. case being No. 118/2022 be and the same is disposed of in view of the above findings.

      The complainant is directed to file death certificate of the Proprietor of Op No.2 by the date fixed.

                  Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant on free of cost.

     Dictated & corrected by me.

                      President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.

      Member                                        Member                                                                 President

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman          D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman                D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman