Bombay High Court
Dr. Manoj Shankarlal Mundhada vs I.C.I.C.I. Prudencial Life Insurance ... on 6 June, 2016
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 wp3233.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 2014
Dr. Manoj Shankarlal Mundhada,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o. Vyankatesh Clinic,
Gopal Nagar, Amravati. ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1) I.C.I.C.I. Prudencial Life Insurance
Co. Ltd., through its Manager,
R/o. Nawathe Plot, Badnera Road,
Amravati, District : Amravati.
2) I.C.I.C.I. Prudencial Life Insurance
Co. Ltd., through its Manager
(Customer Services),
Raheja Tipco Plaza, Ranisati Marg,
Malhad East, Mumbai- 400 097.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri Shrikant Saoji, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Saurabh Tapadiya, Advocate for the Respondents.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 :::Judgment 2 wp3233.14.odt
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for want of prosecution.
4. According to the petitioner, the appeal was pending before the Commission since 2008 and it was being regularly attended however when the matter was adjourned for 2nd September, 2013 the date was wrongly noted as 2nd December, 2013 and because of this inadvertent mistake in noting the date the matter could not be attended on 2nd September, 2013 on which date the appeal was called out and was dismissed for want of prosecution.
5. The learned advocate for the respondents has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has alternate efficacious statutory remedy of revision before the National Commission. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not been vigilant in prosecuting the matter and the petitioner filed this petition after a period of about three months from the date of knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 :::Judgment 3 wp3233.14.odt
6. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, I find that the respondents have not been able to show that the petitioner has gained anything by not attending the matter on 2 nd September, 2013. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner attempted to protract the proceedings. In the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to accept the technical objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition.
I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the appeal of the petitioner is restored and the State Commission is directed to decide the appeal on merits.
7. Hence, the following order :
i) The order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 2nd September, 2013 is set aside.
ii) Appeal No. A/08/764 filed by the petitioner before the State Commission is restored to file.
iii)The State Commission is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits.
iv) The appellant and the respondents shall appear before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 ::: Judgment 4 wp3233.14.odt Maharashtra, Circuit Bench, Nagpur on 11th July, 2016 at 11.00 a.m. and abide by the further orders in the matter.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
ig JUDGE
RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 :::