Allowed

Employees State Insurance Corp. through Its Director, Nagpur v. Dinkar Baliram Lute and Another

Bombay HC24 Apr 2013WP/1759/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court noted that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for want of prosecution due to the absence of counsel, who was ill and attending a colleague in the hospital. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Commission to decide the appeal on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; Commission directed to decide the appeal on merits within two months.

Employees State Insurance Corp. through Its Director… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp1759-13.order

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 1759 of 2013

¶4

E.S.I.C. Through its Director, Panchdeep Bhavan, Nagpur.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Dinkar Baliram Lute and another.

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Shri V.P. Maldhure, counsel for petitioner. Ms. Tanna, counsel for respondent no. 1.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 24th April, 2013.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 4.1.2013, dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner for want of prosecution.

¶11

The respondent no.1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum claiming a sum of Rs.4,53,938/-. The petitioner filed the written statement and denied the claim of the respondent no.1. The Forum, however, by an order dated 20.10.2008, allowed the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,79,058/- towards disablement benefit to the respondent no. 1. The order of the District Forum was challenged by the petitioner before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. When the matter was fixed for hearing on 4.1.2013, the counsel for the petitioner Smt. B.P. Maldhure and Shri V.P. Maldhure failed to remain present and therefore the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.1.2013.

¶12

wp1759-13.order

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal as the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for not remaining present before the Commission on 4.1.2013. It appears that the arguing counsel in the matter Smt. B.P. Maldhure was ill from 31.12.2012 to 5.1.2013 and was hospitalised. The Assisting counsel Shri V.P. Maldhure was attending the arguing counsel, his mother, in the hospital and therefore the matter remained unattended on 4.1.2013. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal as there was sufficient cause for the counsel for the petitioner not to remain present before the Commission on 4.1.2013. Since the client should not suffer for the mistake of his counsel, the writ petition needs to be allowed and it would be necessary to quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the Commission to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing the parties on merits.

¶14

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Commission is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Commission. The parties undertake to appear before the Commission on 6.5.2013 so that issuance of notice to the parties could be dispensed with.

¶15

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

Hirekhan

Employees State Insurance Corp. through Its Director, Nagpur v. Dinkar Baliram Lute and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corp. through Its Director, Nagpur v. Dinkar Baliram Lute and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anna S/O Daulatrao Ikhe and Another Vs the Additional Commissioner, Amravati and Others

Smt. Uma Shashi Dass W/O Kanta Prasad Dass Vs M/S Ashirwad Builders Thr. Its Partner Rd Rangari and Ors.

Prof. Keshav S/O Bhaskar Chandle and Others Vs Ranchoiddas S/O Vithaldas Nathani (Dead) and Others

Bandu S/Oramrao Pachpor and Anr. Vs Ramesh /So Kisanrao Gulhane

Shri. Vijay Maroti Kusnake Vs Additional Collector, Gadchiroli and Others

Dinesh S/O Purushottam Kakad Vs Vrushali Prakashrao Upadhye