Date of filing: 01.10.2018                                                                                Date of disposal: 29.10.2018

Complainant:             Sadananda Das, S/o. Gangadhar Das, resident of Village: Srikantha Pur, Post Office: Adisaspur, Police Station: Parul, District: Birbhum.

• V E R S U S   -

Opposite Party:         1. Raksha TPA Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Durgapur Branch, having its office at A-2/4, Allauddin Khan Bithi, City Centre, Near Chaturanga Puja Maidan, Durgapur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 216.

                                    2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Director, having its corporate office at IDDCO Tower, Plot No. 3, Sector 29, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001.

Proforma Opposite Party: 3. Steel Authority of India Ltd., represented by its Manager, having its office at Ispat Bhaban, Lodi Road, New Delhi, PIN -  110 003.

Present: 

 Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).

                         Hon’ble Member:   Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.

                         Hon’ble Member:  Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.

Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the OP No. 2:    Ld. Advocate. Soumalya Ganguli.

Order No. 13, Dated: 29.10.2018

This order is arising out of the Misc. Application being No. 70/2018 filed by the complainant in the C. C. No. 261/2017 praying for amendment in the cause title of the complaint.

The complainant has stated in the said application after admission of the complaint summons were issued upon the OP-1, 2 & 3. Though summons upon OP -2&3 have duly been served and they also appeared before this ld. Forum but summon upon the OP-1 has been returned with remark “Left” for more than two times. Thereafter the complainant came to learn that the office of the OP-1 has been closed

Contd…p/2

-:2:-

as such summon has been returned. Thereafter the complainant discovers the new address of the OP-1 as has been mentioned in the schedule below. Therefore for proper adjudication of this case and proper service of summon upon the OP-1, the address of the OP-1 should be corrected by way of amendment.  So the complainant is praying for amendment in the address of the OP-1 mentioned in the cause title of this complaint, otherwise the complainant will be seriously prejudiced. The amendment sought for is formal in nature and character of the complaint.  

The copy of the said M.A. is received by the OP-2. The ld. Counsel for the OP-2 raised no objection against the said application.

After hearing from the ld. Counsel for the complainant, we are of the view that to proceed with the complaint further, the proper address of the OP-1  is very much necessary, otherwise the summon will not be served upon the OP-1. So, the Application filed by the complainant should be allowed as per schedule in the Application as the Application is simple and formal in nature and it will not change the nature and character of the case.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the M.A. being No. 70/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost.

Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated & Corrected by me:                                                         (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

                                                                                                                       President

           (Nivedita Ghosh)                                                                       DCDRF, Burdwan

                 Member

           DCDRF, Burdwan

                                        (Tapan Kumar Tripathy)                              (Nivedita Ghosh)

                                                   Member                                                     Member

                                           DCDRF, Burdwan                                       DCDRF, Burdwan