SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.A.SHAH, R.K.SHAH
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MEHTA ROAD LINES – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. R.R. Panchal, Advocate.
For the Opponent:Mr. Rakesh Majumdar, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President — The complainant has realised that after the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, the complaint by subrogatee (Insurance Company) will not be entertained since the Insurance Company is not the consumer.

2. We have, in another matter, decided that if a complaint is file by the Insurance Company alongwith the consumer, such complaint can be entertained. Mr. Panchal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant therefore seeks permission to withdraw the complaint to enable his client to file a fresh complaint or file a civil suit with proper parties since there is a technical defect of proper parties.

3. Mr. Rakesh Mazumdar appearing for the opposite party was shown the application but he has no submission to make. This question has been arisen after the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M/s. Green Transport Company v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in II (1992) CPJ Page 349 (NC). According to our opinion, there is no reason to deny the withdrawal since Mr. Panchal wants it to avoid technical difficulties in future. The purshish is taken on record.

ORDER

Permission as sought by Mr. Pancha1 is



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top