/'i\(

I

\-, ^{

ft.\*zrfzog

IPf,Banf

chrr.{r?gu

ffirVl{q

1l l$q-t*<a- is se,r*r e-{ i n ^{v ie-m}

P,ruis I'f.O ^b.1 Pd' ^+-o["f,

z) Gil .$

o,4 )'

3l

STATB CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTR+ STATE CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR

(LOK ADALAT)

(Award u/s 21 of legal Authogi?ies Act 1987 passed in Lak-Aclalat held on............

Appear No: ^{A'- Ee{ leaw -.t''cA- 33a/eoo9}

In c.c.No. )3o /;ioa}

\-

We, that is Shri/Smt. 8<-b ou^-y- 6 ^{rr^-^^t Yt"'s-'^a,'q- Cu .Lhl f-Nrhr.*'L" 44v'}

c'O ^ll Pe'n'dt-

Appellant and ShrilS *i.-,nt ' &'-"r't', ^glo G*f ,rfrn'* P€-l*-,

Respondent in the aforesaid case at the intervention of Panel Members have

arrived at amicable settlement as under.

4d

Joi ^{,^.tr-} P,*li, ^{'{^ q,^ a-tosC ht"-e-'o;%4 r^"r'r"J}

n@

Joini ^{Ccn^n{'''o^rs*d}

2-3, 1L, 1o ^.

, fr,-t ^rqneo- $*' Iry"u@nca-

A5"09

RespondenVorg. Complainant: W

$l"gL ?. 9or^l l"r'aLrc

Appellant/org. o.p.

Vs.

Appellant/org. o.p.

Respondent/org. Complainant

The mattJr is imicably settled before the lok-Adiat held on. .. "-e.f?lzotl

q*o-^4+

\ il./ f ld^,

'

Counsel of App'ellant

Counsel for ResPondent

NA,\.PP

(ADV. S.B.SOLAT) (ADV.^=S.(., PAp NI1(AR(ADV.SMT ^ANURADHA

DESPANDE )

Panel Member

Panel Member

Panel Member

W. ugr.. and abide by the terms of ^{the settlement.}

Appellant/org. o.p.

Respondent/org. ComPlainant

M.A. No. 9at

of 2009

IN

A/NGP ?21

of 2009

Appeal wo.

APPELLANT

CO. LTD.,

(Original O.P.)

:

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

Having its Branch at srH Floor, Landmark

Building, Wardha Road, Ramdaspeth,

NAgpuT, THROUGH ITS HEAD oFFIcE AT

570, Naigaum Cross iload, Next to Royal

Industrial Estate, Wadala (W), tvtumbai- +OO

031 THROUGH its Manager.

-vERSUS-

RESPONDENT : MR.DINESH S/o GOPALMO DHOKE

(Original Complainant) Aged-47 years, Occ.: Business,

R/o Takli (Sim), T ^point, Hingna Road,

Nagpur.

The appellant named above most respectfully submits as under

1. lh.at being aggrleved by the order passed by the Hon,ble

Additional District Forum, Nagpur dated 2gl10 /09 in

complaint no. 130 of 2009, the appellant herein named

above has preferred the present appeal for quashing the

impugned order with the facts and grounds stated ii the

memo of appeal. The entire order of District Forum is

erroneous and glaring example of non_application of mind

and it cannot stand to the scrutiny of Law.

2. That the appellant has demonstrated in the memo of

appeal as to how the lmpugned order passed by the

ld 344lO9).

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF STAY TO THE EFFECT AND

OPERATION OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1Ol2O09 IN

@y

Click Here to Read the rest of this document