NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1701/2006

LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. SUNITA - Opp.Party(s)

MOHINDER SINGH AND CO.

01 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 18 Jul 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1701/2006
(Against the Order dated 28/03/2006 in Appeal No. 1512/2003 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA AND ANR.124 CONNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SMT. SUNITAR/O VILLAGE SASA GUJJAR,P.O. BIBIPUR TEHSIL SAMANA, DISTT. PATIALA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MOHINDER SINGH AND CO.
For the Respondent :Mr. RAndeep Singh, adv . for - , Advocate

Dated : 01 Oct 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.

          The State Commission has dismissed the appeal as the petitioner had failed to comply with the second proviso to Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the petitioner to deposit either 50% of the amount awarded or Rs.25,000/- before the appeal could be entertained.  Petitioner, inspite of repeated adjournments, did not deposit the amount which had been mandated by the State Commission.  

-2-

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions of Section 15 of the Act are mandatory and the appeal could not be entertained till the deposit of the money.

          This apart, Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula on a request conveyed to him through counsel for the petitioner has reported that the petitioner did not deposit the Draft of Rs.25,000/- and only a photocopy of the Draft was given along with application which means ‘Nothing’.  The relevant part of the report of Secretary reads as under:

      “It is intimated that the bank draft dated 10.1.2006 has not been deposited by the appellant as per record of this Commission.  However, an application dated 12.1.2006 was moved by the appellant to condone the delay for depositing the amount as required by second proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, with further prayer to accept the demand draft of Rs.25,000/- dated 26.11.2005 (only photo copy of draft No.456626 dated 26.11.2005 was attached with the application) and to decide the appeal on merits.  This application has been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana vide order dated 28.3.2006 while deciding First Appeal No.1512 of 2003 LIC Vs. Smt. Sunita.”

 

 

-3-

          Revision petition is dismissed.  No costs.

          Registrar of this Commission is directed to release sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner to the respondent along with accrued interest in part adjustment of the decreetal amount.

          Petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount to the  respondent within 6 weeks, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to execute the decree under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER