State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Lalitaben Ramlal Darji on 20 July, 2004
To be reported:Yes/No
BEFORE
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE , AHMEDABAD
APPEAL NO. 136 OF
2003
United
India Ins. Co. Ltd.
JB
Chambers, 2nd Floor
Idar,
Dist. Sabarkantha
Through:
Regional
Office
Pushpak,
6th Floor
Khanpur,
Ahmedabad 380 001 Appellant
versus
Lalitaben
Ramlal Darji
Res.
at PO Chitoda
Tal.
Vijaynagar
Dist.
Sabarkantha Respondent
BEFORE:
Justice M.S. Parikh,
President
Dr. M.K. Joshi, Member
Smt. Leenaben Desai, Member
Appearance:
Mr. V.P. Nanavaty, Advocate
for the appellant
ORAL
ORDER:[By Justice M.S. Parikh, President] [Date: July 20, 2004] This appeal arises from order dated 29.1.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sabarkantha in Complaint No. 105 of 2002 filed for execution of the order dated 1.7.1997 passed by the said Forum in Complaint No. 28 of 1997. In the original complaint, the learned Forum directed the opponent insurance company to process the claim and take a decision this way or that way within six months from the date of the order. As the opponent insurance company did not comply with the order passed by the learned Forum, the complainant was required to file aforesaid complaint No. 105 of 2002 for taking steps against the concerned officers of the opponent insurance company under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In order that the matter might be attended to in its true spirit with a view to attain finality of the proceeding, this Commission had an occasion to pass following order on 18.2.2004.
"Admit.
Notice to the respondent returnable on 2.7.2003. Ad-interim stay of the execution of the impugned order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Darkhast Application No.105 of 2002 on condition that the appellant deposits Rs.5,000/- in this Commission by demand draft/local cheque within four weeks from today. Direct service permitted.
It is made clear that it will be open for the appellant insurance company to process the claim of the complainant as directed by the learned Forum in the original proceedings by seeking specific information from the complainant".
2 Instead of dealing with the aforesaid order in its true spirit, the parties have entered into further correspondence. It is likely to result into indefinite exercise. We do not propose to enter into the merit of default of either side alleged by the parties. No one is present for the complainant. However, no officer is present for the opponent insurance company. This Commission would require explanation from concerned officer of the opponent insurance company with regard to why he has not obeyed the order although the order was passed in the year 1997.
Hence, learned advocate will see to the concerned officer being kept present before this Commission on the next adjourned date. Accordingly adjourned to 25.8.2004.
[M.S. Parikh] President [Dr. M.K. Joshi] [Leenaben Desai] Member Member