NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1140/2010

SANTOSH KUMAR SARAF - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. DEVENDRA SINGH

16 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 07/01/2010 in Appeal No. 766/2007 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. SANTOSH KUMAR SARAFR/o. Gandhi Chowk, Tehsil NagodSatna(Madhya Pradesh) ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.Through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Circuit House ChowkSatna(Madhya Pradesh)2. DR. A.A. SIDDIQUIR/o. Jivan Jyoti Colony, In Front of Hotel Savera, Rewa RoadSatna(Madhya Pradesh) ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 16 Aug 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.

With the consent of the counsel for the patties, the matter was finally heard. The District Forum had jointly and severally held the opposite parties guilty for negligence. Against the said order of the District Forum, only Insurance Co. had filed an appeal in the year 2007. Subsequently, during the pendency of the said appeal, the OP No.2 filed an application under order 1 rule 10 of CPC for transposition of the respondent no.2 as the appellant no.2. This application was filed after there years on 4.1.2010 in which it was stated that the OP No.2 was advised by a local Advocate that there was no need for filing a separate appeal since the appeal had already been filed by the Insurance Co. It is further stated in the said application that later on his doubt was cleared and it was informed that a separate appeal is required to be filed. Under these circumstances, the application was filed. First of all, the application does not state the name of the Advocate which was required to be disclosed. No affidavit of the said Advocate has been filed. Secondly, if there was deficiency on the part of the local Advocate, OP No.2 should have complained against him to the Bar Council of India, but nothing was done. When OP No.2 had been advised not to challenge the order and when he was advised to challenge the order of the District Forum separately is not disclosed and who had advised him to do so. Be that as it may, the application was filed after a period of three years and in view of the fact that OP had acquired a valuable right on account of non-challenge of the order of the District Forum, the OP NO.2 could not be allowed to be joined as an appellant. The application in question was hopelessly barred by limitation. The petitioner was not even heard on this application which was filed on 4.1.2010 and was disposed with no objection on the part of Insurance Co. on 7.1.2010. The impugned order actually was passed when no one had appeared on behalf of the present petitioner/complainant. In view of above, the order dated 7.1.2010 of the State Commission on application dated 4.1.2010 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER