Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Smt. Nalini Wd/O Sudhakar Patil & Others vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 31 July, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
  
 
 






 
            	



 



 
   
   
   


   
     
     
     

STATE CONSUMER
    DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  MAHARASHTRA
    
   
    
     
     

CIRCUIT BENCH
    AT   NAGPUR
    
   
    
     
     

5 TH FLOOR,
    ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
    
   
    
     
     

CIVIL LINES,
    NAGPUR-440 001
    
   
  
  
   

 
  
 
  
   
   

 
  
 
  
   
   
     
     
     
       
       
       

First Appeal
      No. A/09/617
      
     
      
       
       

(Arisen out
      of Order Dated 13/07/2009 in Case No. 316/2008 of District Forum,Yavatmal)
      
     
    
     

 
    
   
    
     
     

 
    
   
    
     
     
       
       
       
         
         
         

1.

Smt. Nalini Wd/o Sudhakar Patil  

2. Adinath S/o Sudhakar Patil  

3. Ku. Gyaneshwari d/o Sudhakar Patil No. 2&3 being minors, through natural Guardian/mother, appellant No. 1 above Named All R/o Village Daheli, Tq. Darwha, Distt. Yavatmal.

...........Appellant(s)     Versus  

1. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, R/o. "Yogshem" Jiwan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021.

 

2. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Amravati Division, Shri Krishna Peth, Amravati.

 

3. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch at Digras, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal ...........Respondent(s)   BEFORE:

   
Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER   HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER   HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER   PRESENT:
None ......for the Appellant   Adv. Smt. Rohilla ......for the Respondent ORDER (Delivered on 31/07/2012) Per Mr. S. M. Shembole, Hon'ble Presiding Member Appellants as well as their counsel are absent. Adv. Smt. Rohilla for the respondents is present. As the appellants as well as their counsel are absent since long. On 28/11/2011 notice was issued to them but till today no report about service of notice is received. However, on perusal of the office copy of the notice it reflects that it was issued on the correct address of the appellants as shown in the appeal memo. Therefore it will have to be presumed that they are served with notice but they are absent. Hence, there is no alternative except to dismiss the appeal in default and, accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to cost.
 
 Dated:- 31/07/2012   [ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER     [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER     [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER ay