Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/343

SARAD MURUMKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIPIN SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

Shri M.S. Tahilramani, counsel for appellant.

Shri Ashish Bargale, counsel for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

None for other respondents.

As per service report, acknowledgment cards for the notices issued to the respondents No. 4 and 7  by registered post on 9.6.2014 have not been received back.  The period of 30 days from the date of issue of notice by registered post on the last known address of the said respondents having expired, they are deemed to be served.

Heard on I.A.-1 for condonation of delay.  The appeal is reported to be barred by one year.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned order of dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution came into the knowledge of appellant in the last week of January, 2014, since the copy of the said order had been sent on his old address from where he had shifted.

Since the appellant could not get knowledge of the impugned order earlier even from his counsel, he could not file appeal immediately after passing of the order.  The delay caused in filing the appeal, therefore, was not willful but was due to lack of knowledge of dismissal of complaint.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that it is a case of medical negligence.  The appellant has lost his wife.  If delay is not condoned the appellant shall loose his valuable legal right of obtaining compensation.  In support of averments made in the application the appellant has filed his own affidavit.

Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the application for condonation but on consideration of submissions made by counsel for appellant, we find sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.

Accordingly the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

With the consent of parties, heard finally.

Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated  31.1.2013 passed by the District Forum Bhopal in C.C. No. 343/09, whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed for default in appearance of complainant.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that during pendency of the complaint, he had shifted his residence.  Counsel, who was representing the appellant in the Forum had assured him  that whenever his presence would be required he shall be informed.  However, counsel failed to appear and also failed to inform complainant, therefore, he could not appear  on the  dates mentioned in the order of dismissal.

Shri Ashish Bargale, counsel for respondents submits that on 8.1.2013, 23.1.2013 and 31.1.2013 none had appeared for complainant, therefore, the Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution.

In view of the submissions made by counsel for appellant and in view of the fact the complainant  was assured by the counsel that he would take care of his case and that whenever his presence would be required he will be informed and further that the complainant is seeking compensation for medical negligence from the respondents for the medical negligence, we deem it appropriate to restore the complaint.

Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to be deposited in the State Commission.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.