West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/90/2009

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Keya Majumdar. - Opp.Party(s)

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

17 Sep 2009

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
RC No. 90 of 2009
1. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Cooch Behar. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Smt. Keya Majumdar. W/O Sri Jiban Kumar Majumdar, Sahita Sabha Lane, PS. Kotwali, PO. Patakura, Dist. Cooch Behar.2. Dr. Pompi Bhattacharya, M.D, Pathology.C/O Dr. Bhattacharya's Pathology Laboratory, 265, Silver Jubilee Road. Near Old Bus Stand, PS. Kotwali, PO & Dist. Cooch Behar.3. Subham Hospital & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.Represented by its Managing Director, Nara Narayan Road. (Near Circuit House) PS. Kotwali. Post & dist. Cooch Behar. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :1. Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, 2. Mr. Prasanta Banerjee., Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 17 Sep 2009
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.

No. 2/17.09.2009.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Heard Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate for the revision petitioner.  We have considered the application for condonation of delay.  On perusal of the substance of the matter we find that the contention of the revision petitioner that the O.P. No. 3 is not to be continued party in the proceeding, may be considered at the time of final hearing as Complainant has made O.P. No. 3 a party and it appears prima facie that the O.P. No. 3 is a proper party and, therefore, no interference is being found required and the revision itself is dismissed.  We do not feel that the application for condonation is to be entertained keeping in mind the long period of delay involved and the explanation is sufficient.  Therefore, the application is dismissed.  The revision petition is also dismissed.

 


MR. A K RAY, MemberHON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, Member