CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

Laxmi Devi Agrawal vs BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 20 March 2015 · Citation: (2015) 03 NCDRC CK 0104

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.CHAUDHARI J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 409 words
1.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the C.G. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Misc. Case No. MA/12/02 in Appeal No. 428 of 2011 Laxmi Devi Agrawal Vs. Branch Manager, LIC of India and Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed in default.

2.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum which was dismissed by learned District Forum vide order dated 4.7.2011. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal on account of non -appearance against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. As far delay in filing this petition is concerned, learned State Commission dismissed appeal in default on 23.12.2011 against which, restoration application was filed by petitioner before State Commission which was dismissed on 21.2.2012. Complainant challenged order dated 21.2.2012 before this Commission by another revision petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.7.2012 and afterwards, complainant filed this revision petition on 22.8.2012. In such circumstances, delay in filing revision petition against order dated 23.12.2011 is condoned as petitioner by mistake challenged order dated 21.2.2012.

4.

AS far merits of the case is concerned, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that Counsel for the complainant noted date of 24.12.2011 instead of 23.12.2011, so, could not appear before State Commission on 23.12.2011 and appeal was dismissed in default which may be restored.

5.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner on earlier date also not appeared before State Commission. In such circumstances, revision petition should be dismissed. As appeal was dismissed on account of noting down wrong date it would be appropriate to allow revision petition and restore appeal at its original number for disposal on merits.

6.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 21.02.2012 passed by State Commission in Misc. Case No. MA/12/02 in Appeal No. 428 of 2011 Laxmi Devi Agrawal Vs. Branch Manager, LIC of India and Anr. is set aside and appeal is restored at its original number and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

7.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 27.04.20152E