NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4379/2012

NIRMAL KUMAR SONI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RITESH KHARE

26 Jul 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 03/08/2012 in Appeal No. 1707/2008 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. NIRMAL KUMAR SONI
S/o Shri Moli Kumar Soni, Gaushala Choek, The Raghurajnagar
SATNA
M.P
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE
-
SATNA
M.P
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate

Dated : 26 Jul 2013
ORDER

 

 

Learned counsel for the parties present. 

The case of the petitioner was dismissed in default on 3.8.2012.  The impugned order runs as follows:-

“3.8.2012

None for the appellant.

Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent.

-2-

This appeal was received by post and therefore, on 17.7.2008, when the case was fixed the case was adjourned to 14.8.2008.  Thereafter the case was fixed on 13.8.2008 and SPC was issued to appellant of the next date.  On 24.2.2010 none was present and the case was adjourned to 16.6.2010 but on 16.6.2010 also none was present for the appellant while Ms. Chitra Sharma appeared for the respondent and it was directed that SPC be sent to the appellant of the next date and the case was fixed on 3.11.2010.  On 6.6.2011 when the case was fixed none was present for the appellant.  On 25.5.2012 also none was present for the appellant.  In between these dates the case was fixed before the Registrar, in default but there also none appeared for the appellant.

It is therefore, clear that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.”

 

          The record goes to show that the petitioner did not appear before the State Commission from 17.7.2008 to 03.8.2012.  The petitioner pursued the matter in a happy go lucky manner for four years.  She did not ask her advocate or did not go to the office of her advocate to know about the progress of the case. 

          Seeing the bizarre conduct of the petitioner and in the interest of justice, we restore the appeal to its original number before the State Commission, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund towards Uttarakhand tragedy.   Cheque be prepared in the name of Prime Minister’s Relief Fund towards Uttarakhand tragedy and be handed over to the Registrar of this Commission for onward transmission to the PMO.

          The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 2.9.2013.  The State Commission is directed to hear both the parties on merits after satisfying that the above said costs has been paid.  The receipt be produced before the State Commission.

 

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
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.