Haryana

Karnal

CC/340/2022

Mamta Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Saini

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint.No.340 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.15.06.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:02.04.2024

 

1. Mamta Sharma wife of late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma.
2. Rishika Sharma minor daughter of late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma.
3. Taniya Sharma minor daughter of late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma.
4. Rahul Sharma minor son of Sh. late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma all resident of House no.888/10 Chand Sarai Dhobhi Ghat Karnal. Minor defendants no.2 to 4 through their mother Mamta Sharma (defendant no.1) being natural guardian and next friend all the defendents are the class-1 legal heirs/representative of deceased Shri Brij Mohan Sharma son of Shri Rajinder Kumar.

 

          ...…Complainants.

                                        Versus

1. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., at SCO No.18, Sector-3 HSIIDC, Industrial Area Karnal, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., at Plot no.144, 1^st floor, Industrial Area Phase-2, Chandigarh-160017, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. State Bank of India, at Shakti Colony, Karnal thorugh its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                        ....Opposite parties.

  Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member.

                Dr. Suman Singh………….Member.

               

Present:   None for the Complainant.

                Sh. N.K.Zak, Counsel for the OPs-1 & 2.

                Sh. Pardeep Gupta, Counsel for the OP-3.

                                                         

               Today the case is fixed for evidence of the complainant, subject to the second last opportunity. No evidence is present. Case called several times since morning but none has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant. Position remained the same on the adjourned date. It is already 03:30 PM. No further wait is justified.

                   A careful perusal of the file reveals that in the present complaint, the written version has been filed by the OPs-1 & 2 on 18.10.2022 and OP-3 on 31.10.2022. The complainant has availed several effective opportunities for leading his evidence but the complainant has failed to conclude the same. It appears that the complainant is no more interested to pursue the present complaint.

                   Further adjournment for the same purpose would not be justified as it would amount to wastage of precious time of this Commission.

                   Hence, in view the above facts, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. However, complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Dated:02.04.2024.            

                   President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)   (Dr. Suman Singh) 

  Member                   Member