Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. RAJENDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION & ANR. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and context of the appeal case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts regarding the insurance policy and its implications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. description of legal arguments presented by both parties. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. court's observations about responsibility and deficiency in service. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER
1. This Revision Petition No.1392 of 2012 challenges the impugned order of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 09.11.2011. Vide this order, the learned State Commission modified the order dated 18.12.2008 of the East Godavari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kakinada (‘District Forum’, hereafter) and allowed in part the Appeal No.463 of 2009 by fixing jointly and severally liability of the Petitioner/OP2 (‘OP2’, hereafter) and Respondent No.1/OP1 (‘OP1’, hereafter) to pay the sum insured to the Respondent No.2/Complainant (‘Complainant’, hereafter).
2. As per Report of the Registry, there is a delay of 6 days in filing of the Revision Petition. However, as per the Application seeking condonation of delay, there is a delay of 5 days. For the reasons stated in the Application, the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
