Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/07/988

Jogeshwari Jewellers - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete / Mrs. Pooja Vagal / Mr. Makarand Patil

01 Mar 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/07/988
(Arisen out of Order Dated 19/06/2007 in Case No. 06/2006 of District Raigarh)
 
1. Jogeshwari Jewellers
Prop. Kedar Suresh Divekar, At Post Shivaji Chowk, Nagothane, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad
Raigad
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Through Divisional Manager, At Post Ta. Alibaug, Dist. Raigadh.
Raigad
Maharashtra
2. Shri. D. G. Thale
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., At Post Nagothane, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad
Raigad
Maharashtra
3. Bank of India
Bense Branch, At Post Bense, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad
Raigad
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Both the parties absent.
......for the Appellant
 
ORDER

(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)

 

(1)               This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/06/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 06/2006, Jogeshwari Jwellers Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & ors., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh ('Forum' in short).

 

(2)               Both the parties are remaining absent.    Intimation of the date fixed was already published on notice board of the Commission, the Bar and internet.   Since, both the parties are remaining absent; we prefer to consider the appeal for admission on its own merit. 

 

(3)               Admittedly, the consumer complaint stood dismissed.  The respondent/opponent repudiated the claim of the appellant/complainant.  The complainant, therefore, filed consumer complaint.  The forum upholding the contention of the opponent insurance company dismissed the consumer complaint.  Since the policy taken by the complainant did not cover the risk of flood, ultimate dismissal of the consumer complaint cannot be faulted with.   Holding accordingly, we pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

(1)     Appeal is not admitted and stands dismissed, accordingly.

(2)     In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

 

Pronounced on 1st March, 2012.

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde]
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.