State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Surajmal Bhagirathji Lahoti, vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., on 19 March, 2010
Date of filing :03.11.2009 Date of order :19.03.2010 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . REVISION PETITION NO. :46 OF 2009 IN F.A. NO. : 1422 OF 2005 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 152 OF 2003 ISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :BEED. Mr.Surajmal Bhagirathji Lahoti, R/o Beed. REVISION PETITIONER. VERSUS The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Ashiyana Building, Jalna Road, Beed. RESPONDENT. CORAM : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale for revision petitioner, Adv.Shri.M.M.Ambhore for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The present revision petition is filed by original complainant against the judgment and order dated 9.4.2009 passed by this Commission in F.A.No.1422/05.
2. Notice was issued to the respondent. Learned counsel Shri.M.M.Ambhore appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard learned counsel Shri.S.N.Tandale for revision petitioner and learned counsel Shri.M.M.Ambhore for respondent. The learned counsel Shri.Tandale brought to our notice that appeal bearing No.1422/05 filed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2005 in complaint case No.152/03 has already been disposed of by State Commission at Mumbai vide its judgment and order dated 06.05.2006. Learned counsel Shri.Tandale submitted that advocate for appellant did not bring to the notice of this Commission that the appeal is already disposed of. He also submitted that revision petitioner got executed the judgment and order passed by State Commission, Mumbai. Respondent had deposited the amount as per award and the same has been paid to the revision petitioner. According to him present judgment and order passed by this Commission has no legal weightage in the eye of law. Thus he submitted for setting aside the judgment and order of this Commission.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri.Ambhore submitted that he was not informed by insurance company about disposal of appeal and thus he could not bring this fact to the notice of Commission. The matter was allotted to him by insurance company without informing the disposal of appeal, he appeared in appeal.
4. Present revision petitioner was not present before this Commission at the time of hearing of appeal though he was served with the notice. It be mentioned that present appeal No.1422/05 has been transferred by State Commission, Mumbai when the Circuit Bench was established at Aurangabad There was no reference about the disposal of appeal in the papers. . As the appeal was transferred to this bench notices were issued to parties. The present revision petitioner did not appear. Whereas learned counsel for insurance company had appeared. On hearing him appeal was disposed of as the fact of disposal of appeal was not brought to the notice of Commission. As appeal No.1422/05 had been disposed of by the State Commission, Mumbai vide its judgment and order dated 06.05.2006, the same could not have been heard and disposed of by this Commission. The Commission has no power to review its own judgment and order. However, we opine that earlier judgment and order dated 06.05.2006 passed by State Commission, Mumbai will prevail over the judgment and order passed by this Commission. Revision petition is disposed of.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh Member Presiding Judicial Member.
Mane