Tribunals and Commissions(2015) 03 NCDRC CK 0013

Ishwarappa Shankarappa Mane vs Annasaheb Shivappa Savekar

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 11 March 2015 · Citation: 2015 2 CPR 94

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.B.GUPTA , SURESH CHANDRA J.
RESULT
Petition disposed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 434 words
1.

ABOVE noted application has been filed by the petitioner for taking "Consent Terms" on record and for passing appropriate order.

2.

PETITIONER as well as respondents no.1 to 3/complainants have placed on record "Consent Terms" with regard to settlement of above noted matter.

3.

RESPONDENTS no.1 to 3 have filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner and the insurance company seeking compensation on account of medical negligence on the part of the petitioner. District Forum vide its order dated 30.11.2009, allowed the complaint of respondents no.1 to 3 and directed petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lacs (Rupees Ten Lacs only) as compensation to respondents no.1 to 3 in addition Rs.5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand only) was also awarded. Besides this, District Forum held that insurance company jointly responsible to pay compensation upto Rs.2 Lacs (Rupees Two Lacs only) to respondents no.1 to 3.

4.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same vide its impugned order dated 12.08.2011.

5.

NOW petitioner has filed the present revision petition before us against the impugned order.

6.

IT would be pertinent to point out that New India Insurance Company Ltd. did not challenge the order of District Forum as well as of State Commission. Thus, orders passed by both the fora below against the insurance company have become final.

7.

NOW as per terms of settlement placed on record by petitioner and respondents no.1 to 3, the petitioner has agreed to settle all the disputes for a total sum of Rs.10 Lacs (Rupees Ten Lacs only). Further, as per terms of settlement sum of Rs.10 Lacs lying deposited with the State Commission, Mumbai should be released in favour of respondents no.1 to 3 along with accrued interest.

8.

THE sum of Rs.10 Lacs as ordered by both the fora below have been paid by petitioner alone to respondents no.1 to 3. Terms of settlement have been duly signed by the petitioner as well as respondents no.1 to 3.

9.

PETITIONER as well as respondents no.1 to 3 shall be bound by the terms of settlement.

10.

THE State Commission, Mumbai shall release sum of Rs.10 Lacs lying deposited with it along with accrued interest, if any to respondents no.1 to 3/complainants after due identification.

11.

MEANWHILE , petitioner will be at liberty to recover the sum of Rs.2 Lacs, which has been awarded against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in accordance with provisions of law.

12.

WITH these observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of.

13.

DASTI to all the parties.