Maharashtra

DCF, South Mumbai

CC/256/2010

Mrs.Kavita dilip Kulkarni - Complainant(s)

Versus

The new india Ass.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ganesh F. Shirke

07 Aug 2014

ORDER

SOUTH MUMBAI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOUTH MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 1st Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012
 
Complaint Case No. CC/256/2010
 
1. Mrs.Kavita dilip Kulkarni
Circuite House Boldana Talu
Buldana
Maharashtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The new india Ass.Co.Ltd
D.O. No. 112800 7th floor 17/a cooperage Road Mumbai-400039
Mumbai
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. Satyashil M. Ratnakar PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. S.G. CHABUKSWAR MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Order  Below  Exhibit 1

PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR - HON’BLE PRESIDENT  :

1)        The Complainant has filed application to transfer the present complaint to the appropriate Forum and in the alternatively he prayed that his complaint be allowed to be withdrawn with permission to filed the same before the appropriate Forum excluding the period consumed before this Forum as provided under Sec.14 of the Limitation Act. 

2)        Heard Advocate for the Complainant Smt. Jyoti Prasad on behalf of Shri. Ganesh Shirke, Advocate and Smt. S.S. Dwivedi, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party.  The Advocate for the Opposite Party objected to grant permission as prayed by the Complainant for the withdrawal of this complaint. Perused the complaint.  The Complainant in the relief clause calmed that the Opposite Party be directed to reimburse Rs.18,15,920/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20/11/2009 till its realization plus compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment.  In view of the reliefs as noted above claimed by the Complainant the prayer made by the Complainant to allow the Complainant to withdraw this complaint and to file the same before the appropriate Forum i.e. the Hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai, excluding the period consumed before this Forum as provided under Sec.14 of the Limitation Act is just and proper; in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai, in the case of O.K. Marine V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in Complaint No.33/2006, decided on 08/07/2014 and the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of M/s. Omex Ltd. V/s. Ms. Iqbal Begum & Ors.  In First Appeal No.2013/887, decided on 16/05/2014. The claim made in the present complaint would definitely exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  We therefore, find that the prayer made by the Complainant in para 2 of the application needs to be allowed.  The following order is therefore, passed –

O R D E R

                      i.       For want of pecuniary jurisdiction the Complaint No.256/2010 be returned to the Complainant for filing before the Hon’ble

                               State Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai, on the same cause of action, excluding the period consumed before this

                               Forum as provided under Sec.14 of the Limitation Act.

                    ii.        The Complainant to file the returned complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission within the period of 45 days from

                               the date of this order.

iii.       There is no order as to cost. 

                   iv.       Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.  

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Satyashil M. Ratnakar]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.G. CHABUKSWAR]
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.