Allowed

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Gorakhlal Jaiswal Thr Spl. P.A. Shailesh Gorakhlal

Bombay HC20 Mar 2013WP/397/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an order dismissing a consumer appeal in default due to the petitioner's counsel's absence. The court allowed the writ, restored the appeal, and ordered conditional costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.01.2012 quashed; First Appeal No. 320 of 2011 restored; petitioner directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000.

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. Vs Yogesh Gorakhlal… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P.397.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 397 OF 2013

¶4

United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Through its Divisional
Manager, Jalgaon Branch,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

1.Yogesh Goraklal Jaiswal,
Age: 33 years, Occup.: Business,
Through Special Power of Attorney
Shri Shailesh Gorkhlal Jaiswal,
Age: 31 years, Occup.: Business,
R/o Ner, Ta. & Dist. Dhule ...RESPONDENT

¶7

...

¶8

 Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner
 Shri Raje, Advocate holding for
 Shri C.R. Deshpande,Advocate for Respondent

¶9

 ...
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
DATE : 20.03.2013

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶12

consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶13

2.The present petitioner has filed Appeal before
the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Mumbai Circuit Bench at Aurangabad. The
said Appeal came to be dismissed in default on
19.01.2012.

¶14

2 W.P.397.13

¶15

3.Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶16

submits that on the given date advocate of the
petitioner could not remain present, due to his
personal difficulty. According to the learned

¶17

counsel, statutory amount has been deposited and
opportunity be given to the petitioner to contest the
Appeal on merits.

¶18

4.Shri Raje, learned Advocate for respondent

¶19

supports the order and submits that the matter was
adjourned on many occasions earlier, and the present

¶20

petitioner remained absent. Even matters were
circulated on Internet. The Commission has taken into
consideration the said aspect and has rightly passed
the order.

¶21

5.Once the Appeal is filed, it is normally advocate
who appears in the matter. Due to personal difficulty,
advocate of the petitioner could not appear. Moreover,
it does not appear that notice was issued to the
parties notifying the date. I deem it appropriate to
give one opportunity to the petitioner to contest the

¶22

Appeal on merits, at the same time the petitioner also

¶23

3 W.P.397.13

¶24

deserves to be mulct with some cost.

¶25

6.In the result, I pass the following order:-
(i)Impugned order dated 19.01.2012 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The First
Appeal bearing No. 320 of 2011 is restored
to its original position on condition that
the petitioner pays cost of Rs.5000/- to
the respondent within a period of four
weeks from today.

¶26

(ii)The cost may be directly paid to the
petitioner or be deposited in the office
of Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission Mumbai, Circuit Bench
at Aurangabad. In case it is deposited in
the office of Commission, as directed
above, respondent is entitled to withdraw
the same.

¶27

(iii) The parties shall appear before the
State Commission on 17.04.2013.

¶28

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶29

 Sd/-

¶30

 [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶31

MTK

¶32

4 W.P.397.13

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Gorakhlal Jaiswal Thr Spl. P.A. Shailesh Gorakhlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Gorakhlal Jaiswal Thr Spl. P.A. Shailesh Gorakhlal

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

Prakash Rambhau Pawar and Ors. Vs Dharma Ramdhan Chavan

Ganpati Rangnath Khose Vs Sarangdhar Bapurao Khose and Another

Vasantrao Shankarrao Amrutkar Vs Kishor Jagannath Kasodekar and Others

Murlidhar Vedu Dusane Vs Sanmukhlal Govardhandas Shah

Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd. Thr. Its Director Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahananda Kailas Survase Vs Lata Vasant Gupte and Ors.