STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/23/RA/24/126 IN SC/23/FA/12/1668 M/S RAJ ENTERPRISES THRO THE PROPRITOR SMT SAROJ JAIDHWAR PRESENT ADDRESS - 08 CHATRIPUL ROAD BHOPAL ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THRO THE BRANCH MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - 115 STATION ROAD RATLAM ,MADHYA PRADESH.

STATE BANK OF INDIA THRO THE MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - COLLECTORATE BRANCH RATLAM ,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

M/S RAJ ENTERPRISES THRO THE PROPRITOR SMT SAROJ JAIDHWAR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THRO THE BRANCH MANAGER DATED: 22/04/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO.126 OF 2024 (Arising out of the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in First Appeal No.1668/2012 by this Commission)

M/S RAJ ENTERPRISES. … APPLICANT Versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD & ANR. … RESPONDENTS BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES Shri Deepesh Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.

None for the respondents.

ORDER (Passed On 22.04.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

The present review application is filed by the applicant/appellant assailing the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 1668/2012 on the ground that the C.C.No.50/2009 is wrongly mentioned as 52/2009 of the District Commission Ratlam in title of the order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of typographical error in the impugned order dated 01.03.02023 passed by this Commission C.C.No.50/2009 of District Commission Ratlam has been typed as C.C.No.52/2009 in the title of the order. The aforesaid mistake is typographical mistake which is apparent on the face of the record, therefore necessary correction be made.

3. Heard. Perused the record.

4. Perusal of the record indicates that the respondent no.1-New India Assurance Company has filed First Appeal No.1668/2012 against the order dated 29.06.2012 of District Commission Ratlam passed in C.C.No.50/2009. However, on account of typographical error while passing the order dated 01.03.2023 in First Appeal No.1668/2012 by this Commission the C.C.No.50/2009 of District Commission, Ratlam has wrongly been mentioned as C.C.No.52/2009 in the title of the order which is apparent on the face of the record.

5. Therefore, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the review application is allowed correcting the C.C.No.50/2009 in place of C.C.No.52/2009 in the title of the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.1668/2012 . Rest of the order shall remain intact.

6. By correcting the C.C.No.50/2009 in place of C.C.No.52/2009 in the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.1668/2012, corrected copy be conveyed to the parties along with the copy of this order This order will be a part of order dated 01.03.2023 passed in First Appeal No.1668/2012. A copy of this order be placed in record of First Appeal No.1668/2012.

(Justice Sunita Yadav) (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

President Member Dubey ..................J SUNITA YADAV PRESIDENT ..................

DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY MEMBER