Circuit Bench Aurangabad

StateCommission

RP/16/2011

Latabai Rajendra Rajkumar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

19 Dec 2012

ORDER

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
 
RP No. 16 Of 2011
(Arisen out of Order Dated 18/02/2008 in Case No. 307/2000 of District None)
 
1. Latabai Rajendra Rajkumar.
R/o.Post Killari,Tq.Ausa.Dist.Latur.
2. Balaji Rajendra Rajkumar.
Post Killari,Tq.Ausa.Dist.Latur.
3. Yashodha Rajendra Rajkumar.
Post Killari,Tq.Ausa.Dist.Latur.
4. Vikas Rajendra Rajkumar.
Post Killari,Tq.Ausa.Dist.Latur.
5. Jaya Rajendra Rajkumar.
Post Killari,Tq.Ausa.Dist.Latur.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
Howrah, Branch Unit No.512200, Madhusudhan Apartment ,P.No.18, Dobson Lane,2nd Floor,Howrah711101.Through its divisional Managar,Howrah 7110101(W.B.)
2. Sanchayani Savings & Investment (I) Ltd.
Through Administrative Office,303,Kamalaya Center,156-A,Lenin Sarani ,Calcutta 700013.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

O  R  A  L    O  R  D  E  R 

 

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

 

 

1.       This application is made by the original applicants requesting that the CC.No.307/2000 be taken up for hearing for disposal of according  to  law. We have heard Adv. Sanjay Mundhe appearing for the appellant and Adv. M.M.Ambhore is appearing for the respondent No. 1. None is present for the respondent No. 2 though served.

 

2.       We have also called record and proceeding of original complaint No. 307/2000 and we have perused the same. It is submitted by the advocate of the applicant that the said CC.No.307/2000 was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai and it was transferred to Circuit Bench, Aurangabad after its establishment in the year 2007 and that on 18/02/2008 Adv.Shri.Karadkhedkar had made wrong submission in that complaint before this Commission that the said complaint has been already disposed on 11/04/2000. He further submitted that on the  basis of said wrong submission, the proceeding of the complaint has been closed by this Commission as per order dated 18/02/2008. He also submitted that Adv.Shri.Karadkhedkar was not appointed by the respondent No. 1 and no such order was passed on 11/04/2000, in that complaint. He also submitted that the complaint was filed after 11/04/2000 before the State Commission Mumbai i.e. on 24/07/2000 and therefore there was no question of passing any order in that complaint on 11/04/2000. He therefore requested that as this Commission relying on the submission of Adv. Karadkhedkar under misconception closed the proceedings of the said complaint, it  may be taken up for hearing after reopening of the proceedings.  

 

3.       Adv.Shri.M.M.Ambhore appeared for the respondent No. 1 also  conceded to the aforesaid request made by the applicant’s advocate.  He also suibmitted that Adv. Karadkhedkar was not appointed by the respondent and therefore he had no authority to make any such submission before this Commission on 18/02/2008. He also submitted that said complaint is still pending and necessary order as deem fit  may be passed in this regard.

 

4.       The perusal of the record and proceeding of  CC.No.307/2000 shows that said complaint was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission on 24/07/2000 and it came tobe transferred to this Commission in the year 2007 when this Circuit Bench was established.

 

5.       The Registry of this Circuit Bench issued notice to both the parties on 16/12/2007 and both the parties were directed to appear before this Commission on 18/02/2008. The complaint  was taken up for hearing  on 18/02/2008 for the first time before this Commission. On that date advocate Karadkhedkar had appeared on behalf of the opponent No. 1 ( respondent No. 1)  and made submission that the complaint has been already disposed of as per judgment and order dated 11/04/2000. On the basis of his submission this Commission closed the proceeding of the complaint on that date. However,  no V.P. was filed by the advocate of Karadkhedkar on behalf of opponent No. 1 in this complaint. It is not known as to how Adv. Karadkhedkar appeared before this Commission on 18/02/2008 and made aforesaid submission on behalf of opponent No.1. Moreover, no copy of such judgment and order dated 11/04/2000 was  produced before this Commission by him. The perusal of the entire record and proceeding of the said appeal  shows that the said  complaint is till pending. Moreover, there is no question to decide that  the complaint on 11/04/2000 when the complaint was filed before the State Commission, Mumbai on 24/07/2000. Hence, we hold that this Commission was misled by Adv. Karadkhedkar on 18/02/2008  which resulted in to erroneous closing of the proceedings of the said complaint. Therefore we hold that the said proceeding requires tobe reopened and the said complaint needs to  be decided in accordance with law. Hence order.

 

                   O   R    D    E    R

 

1.       The application is granted.

2.       The proceedings of the C.C.No. 307/2000 be reopened for    hearing  in that complaint           according to law. This order be         tagged with  record        and proceeding of  CC.No.307/2000 and said complaint be    taken up for  hearing on 14/01/2013.       Both parties shall appear       before this Commission on      14/01/2003 in that complaint.

3.       Copies of this order be issued to both the parties.

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI]
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.