ASHOK KUMAR RAM Vs. JAI BHARAT SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned proxy counsel appears on behalf of the main counsel for the petitioner. From the case file, it is seen that this is a revision challenging the order of the State Commission dated 10.08.2017, wherein the State Commission has already reduced the compensation and cost from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only and it is to be shared among the three opposite parties. The respondent no.1/complainant has come all the way from Hajipur, Bihar and therefore, there is no justification for adjourning the case today because if the matter is adjourned due to non-appearance of the arguing counsel for the petitioner, a cost will have to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 who has come from outside and no advance notice for adjournment was given by the petitioner. This cost may be substantial which may not be justified keeping the decretal amount of Rs.10,000/- in view. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of today.

(2.) From the revision petition, it is seen that the petitioner was OP No.1 and he was working as Development Officer with the L.I.C. of India. It is the main argument taken in the revision petition that the petitioner was only a Development Officer with the L.I.C. and he cannot be saddled with the liability to pay any compensation alongwith the main Corporation i.e. L.I.C. of India. It is only the LIC which is responsible for making the payment. It has been stated that as per the order of the State Commission, Rs.10,000/- is already deposited with the State Commission.

(3.) It is seen that the case relates to only Rs.10,000/- and in my view, the case does not justify any further hearing in the matter on some other date. Moreover, the decretal amount is also very meagre that it does not justify any interference from this Commission in the background of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 SC wherein following has been observed:-