NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3849/2009

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIKHIL RANJAN DAS - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. PRADEEP GAUR & ASSOCIATES

23 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 15 Oct 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3849/2009
(Against the Order dated 03/07/2009 in Appeal No. 143/2009 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Brnch Manger National Ins. Co.Ltd. Kundju Mansion 1st Floor. 548, G.T.Road. Burdwan West Bengal ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. NIKHIL RANJAN DASVillage & P.o. PAtrasayar Distt. Burdwan West Bengal 2. BRACN MANAGER THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road.Kolkata -7000013. BRANCH MANGER THE GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES Gtfs Ltd. 2 Icheabad Road. P.O. sripally distt.BurdwanWest Bengal ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENT
For the Appellant :Mr.Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate for M/S. PRADEEP GAUR & ASSOCIATES, Advocate
For the Respondent :For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Amit Kr. Singh, Advocate, For Respondents 2,3 : Mr.Adab Singh Kapoor, Advocate for MR. AMIT KUMAR SINGH, Advocate

Dated : 23 Mar 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.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the District Forum disposed of the complaint with a direction to the respondent/complainant to file supporting documents to ascertain as to whether the injury in the right eye was due to the accident.  The petitioner was directed to settle the claim within one month of the submission of the documents.

          Instead of submitting the documents to the petitioner to prove that the injury was due to accident, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the State Commission .  According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State Commission, in the absence of the documents which the respondent was required to submit, was not right in allowing the appeal and decreeing the claim.

          Counsel for Respondent No.1 has no objection to the setting aside of the order passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum and remittance of the case to the District Forum for a fresh decision in accordance with law.  Respondent would produce the documents as directed by the District Forum with a copy to the petitioner and the District Forum shall then decide the complaint in the light of the documents submitted by the complainant/respondent.

          Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 and3 states that they have been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation.  At this stage we cannot delete the names of Respondents No.2 and 3.  Respondents No.2 and 3 would be at liberty to file an application before the District Forum for being deleted from the array of respondents.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 26.4.2010.

          Since it is an old case, we would request the District Forum to decide the case within 6 months of the first date of appearance without being influenced by any of the observations made by it in its earlier order or in the order passed by the State Commission.

          Under the order of this Commission dated 13.11.2009, petitioner had deposited 50% of the awarded amount with interest with the District Forum.  Since we are allowing the Revision Petition, we direct the District Forum to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner to the petitioner.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT