West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

MA/365/2023

Smt. Uma Mukherjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2024

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/365/2023
( Date of Filing : 29 Nov 2023 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/135/2021
 
1. Smt. Uma Mukherjee
.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. Firoza Khatoon PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Maitreyee Chakraborty MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 24 Jan 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Order no. 2

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present and files written objection.

Copy served in the presence of the Commission.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party nos.1 and 2/petitioners is present.

The Misc. Application dated 29.11.2023 filed by opposite party nos.1 and 2/petitioners is taken up for hearing.

Perused and considered the Misc. Application along with its objection.

Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 / petitioners submits that due to inadvertence on the part of the opposite parties / petitioners they could not file affidavit in reply to the questionnaire of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties/petitioners may be allowed to submit affidavit in reply to the questionnaire filed by the complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant raised strong objection against the prayer of the opposite parties/petitioners.

On perusal of the record it appears that on 16/11/2022 Ld. Advocate Mr. Akash Dutta (Registration No.S119912402019) submitted before this Commission that opposite party nos.1 and 2 shall not file any affidavit in reply to the questionnaire of the complainant and prayed for closing evidence of opposite party nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, on hearing both side the Commission allowed the prayer of opposite party nos.1 and 2 and closed their evidence.

Suppressing the matter on record the opposite party nos.1 and 2/petitioners stated in their Misc. Application that they could not file affidavit in reply due to inadvertence on their part, which is not the fact.

It is apparent on the face of the record that opposite party nos.1 and 2 had voluntarily chosen not to reply to the questionnaire filed by the complainant.

The complainant will be prejudiced if the prayer of the opposite parties is allowed at this stage to file affidavit in reply which  they have refused earlier on their own volition.

Considering the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prayer of the opposite party nos.1 and 2/petitioners is liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

                                                            O R D E R E D

that the Misc. Application dated 29/11/2023 is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Firoza Khatoon]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Maitreyee Chakraborty]
MEMBER
 

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.