West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/123/2010

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Jolly Dey. - Opp.Party(s)

1. Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, 2. Mr. Prasanta Banerjee.

28 May 2010

ORDER


31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
FA No: 123 Of 2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 08/07/2009 in Case No. 06/2007 of District Kolkata DF, Unit-2)
1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Divisional Office-511700, 4, Mango Lane. (2nd floor) Kolkata-700001.2. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata Divisional Office. 4, Mango Lane. Kolkata- 700001. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Smt. Jolly Dey.W/O Late Madhusudhan Dey. 98, Archala Bala Lane. Huton Road. PO. Assansol, Dist. Howrah.2. The Golden Trust Financial Services.SB Mansion, 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road. Kolkata- 700001. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
MR. A K RAY PRESIDING MEMBERMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER Member
PRESENT :1. Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, 2. Mr. Prasanta Banerjee., Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. Bibhas Mondal., Advocate for the Respondent 1

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.

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

No. 3/28.05.2010.

Appellant through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. B. Mondal, the Ld. Advocate are present.  It appears that the matter was a contested one at the time of passing the judgement.  The party i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the present Appellant, was present during hearing but subsequently did not take care in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order of the Forum below.  It is accordingly very difficult on our part to accede to the prayer of the Appellant to condone the enormous delay of 240 days.  Accordingly the condonation prayer is heard, considered and rejected.

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 28 May 2010

[MR. A K RAY]PRESIDING MEMBER[MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]Member