Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Mrs. A.S. Vijayakar, Member;
Mr.Y. Krishan, Member; Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
M/S. OM GENERAL STORES—Respondent
F.A. No. 8 of 1992—Decided on 15.10.1992

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Naveen Anand & Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. Nijhawan, Advocate.

The court upheld the findings and reliefs granted by the State Commission, and dismissed the appeal as frivolous. The court also clarified that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act enabling a memorandum of cross-objections to be preferred.

Headnote:
Appeal - Consumer Protection Act - The court found that the findings entered by the State Commission were fully supported by the materials available on record and the reliefs granted to the Appellant/Complainant were fully warranted by law. The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous and imposed costs on the Insurance Company. The memorandum of cross-objections filed by the Respondent was held to be not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:

The court found that the findings entered by the State Commission were fully supported by the materials available on record and the reliefs granted to the Appellant/Complainant were fully warranted by law.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous and imposed costs on the Insurance Company. The memorandum of cross-objections filed by the Respondent was held to be not maintainable.
Issues: Appeal, Consumer Protection Act, Memorandum of cross-objections
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the findings entered by the State Commission were fully supported by the materials available on record and the reliefs granted to the Appellant/Complainant were fully warranted by law. The court also held that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act enabling a memorandum of cross-objections to be preferred.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs imposed on the Insurance Company. The memorandum of cross-objections filed by the Respondent was held to be not maintainable.

ORDER

Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—After hearing Counsel for both sides and perusing the records we are satisfied that the findings entered by the State Commission are fully supported by the materials available on record and the reliefs granted by the State Commission to the Appellant/Complainant are fully warranted by law. In fact, we are of the opinion that this is a frivolous appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The appeal is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 3000/-.

2. A memorandum of cross-objections has been filed by the Respondent in the appeal but it has been held by us in several previous cases that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act enabling a memorandum of cross-objections being preferred. Hence, the memorandum of cross-objections will stand dismissed and is not maintainable. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.

–

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis