| Final Order / Judgement | KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW PETITION No.09/2021 in C.C.No.07/2021 ORDER DATED: 04.01.2022 PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT | SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER | SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER | SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER | SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVIEW PETITIONER: | The Divisional Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 3rd Floor, Maheswari Building, M.G. Road, Thrissur – 680 000 |
(by Adv. V. Manikantan Nair) VS. RESPONDENTS: 1. | Mrs. Jessy Malar, W/o Late Mr. Charles, Fishermen Colony No.28, Moothakkara P.O., Kollam West Village, Kollam Corporation, representing herself and for and on behalf of her minor children | 2. | John Britto, Fishermen Colony-28, Moothakkara P.O., Kollam West Village, Kollam Corporation (represented by his mother Mrs. Jessy Malar) | 3. | Jincy, Fishermen Colony-28, Moothakkara P.O., Kollam West Village, Kollam Corporation (represented by his mother Mrs. Jessy Malar) |
(by Advs. S. Reghukumar, Francy John &Threya Pillai) 4. | The Divisional Manager, M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.11, 2nd Floor, Malankara Buildings, V.J.T. Hall Road, Palayam, P.B.No.5521, Thiruvananthapuram |
(by Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh) 5. | The Managing Director, Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd.(Matsyafed), Kamaleswaram, Manacaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram | 6. | The Commissioner, Kerala Fishermen Welfare Board, Ponkunnam, Thrissur – 2 |
ORDER HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT The 4th opposite party in C.C.No.07/2021 has filed this petition seeking review of an order passed by this commission on 08.11.2021 in I.A.No.440/2021. The said petition was filed by the 1st opposite party in the complaint, who is the 4th respondent here. As per the said petition, the 4th respondent herein wanted the question of maintainability of the complaint to be considered as a preliminary issue and to pass appropriate orders thereon. The petitioner in this Review Petition was not a party to I.A.No.440/2021. It was the said petition that was heard and finally disposed of by order dated 08.11.2021. 2. At the time of hearing I.A.No.440/2021 though the counsel for the review petitioner had also addressed arguments, his contentions were not separately considered, since his client was not a party to the Interlocutory Application. In the above review petition, the only contention put forward is that the objections and arguments of the review petitioner have not been discussed or adverted to in the order sought to be reviewed. No error of law apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason warranting a review of our order has been made out or attempted to be made out in this review petition by the petitioner. Therefore, we find no grounds to review the order as sought for. 3. For the above reasons this Review Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. | JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT | T.S.P. MOOSATH | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER | RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER | BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER | K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL | |
