

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
case description on the topic Lac of evidence
Typology: Study notes
1 / 2
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
(^1) Sheela R. Ohri vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 533 OF 2017
(Para) Complainant submitted claim before the Opposite Party alongwith all the document,
but, Opposite Party closed the file on the ground of not filing necessary documents and Complainant
did not substantiate loss. Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, Complainant filed
complaint before the State Commission. Opposite Party resisted complaint and justified repudiation
as Complainant did not substantiate his claim by documents and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which this
appeal has been filed.
Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that Learned State Commission committed error in
dismissing complaint on technical grounds though affidavit and documents were already on record,
hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to
Learned State Commission to decide complaint after considering affidavit and all the documents. 2 HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE, BOMBAY V UDAYSINGH
(1997) 5 SC 129:1997 SC 1132
( PARA 11) Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the view taken by the High Court could be support by the
evidence on record or whether it is based on no evidence at all. The necessary conclusion is that the misconduct alleged against the respondent stands proved.
Since the respondent is a judicial officer and the maintenance of the judgment depends upon the credibility of the conduct, honesty, integrity and character of the office and since the confidence of the litigant public gets affected or shaken by the lack of integrity and character of the judicial officer, we think that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is well justified. It does not warrant interference.