Orissa

Rayagada

CC/460/2015

Smt. Jita Pattnayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, SBI, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 460/ 2015.                                        Date.     28  .    03    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

1.Smt. Jita Pattnayak @ Biswajita Mohanty, W/O: Late Aru Patnayak, Main Road, Kashipur,  Dist: Rayagada          .

2.Arjeeta Pattnayak

3. Adysha Pattnayak.

4.Akhilesh Pattnayak

(All are daughter and sons of Late Aru Patttnayak & being minors  & being minors are represented by their mother and natural guardian Smt. Jita Pattnayak, complainant No.1).                                                                                                                                                                                    …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The  Branch  Manager, State Bank life insurance Co. Ltd., Rayagada Branch, Rayagada.
2. Smt. Urmila Patnayak, @ Urmila Sundadari Pattnayak, W/O: Late Kailash Chandra Pattnayak, Main Road, Kasipur, Dist:Rayagada.       

…Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant:- Sri Manoj Kumar Rath,Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No.1 :- Sri N.N.Panda, Advocate, Rayagada..

For the O.P. No.2:- Sri Sahadev Choudhury, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of death assured amount.

 

                The learned counsel for the O.Ps  appeared before the forum in person and  filed written version  refuting the allegations of the complainant and made arguments touching the points both on facts as well as law.

                The complainant in person is present before the forum along with  her advocate  and has submitted   a memo to withdraw the case and not to proceed further since the dispute amicable settled out of forum    and she has no more claim against the O.Ps in connection with the aforesaid case.

                We perused the memo and the memo is allowed.

                Accordingly the case is closed  as not pressed by the  complainant. Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this    28^th.   Day of       March,   2018.

               

               

                 Member.                                                            Member.                                      President