DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 514/2016
Date of Institution : 08.04.2016
Date of Decision : 03.05.2016
M/s Satyam Suit and Sarees, Shastri Market, Sadar Bazaar, Opposite Kumar Optical, Barnala through its Sole Prop. Jagdish Kumar son of Bhagwan Das resident of Barnala, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No. 101, 102, 103, 2nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017 through its Divisional Manager/Area Manager.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 147, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001 through its Divisional Manager/ Area Manager.
4. Ravinder Gupta, Authorized Agent Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Near Ludhiana Cloth House, Sadar Bazaar, Dr. Hem Raj Wala Morcha, Barnala-148101.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. K.R. Goyal counsel for complainant.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short as Act) against the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and others (in short as opposite parties) on the ground that in the night of 17.2.2014 some unknown persons committed theft in his shop and took away suits and sarees valuing Rs. 15,37,500/- and cash amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. Therefore, the complainant sought the relief of Rs. 19,87,730/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant proprietor Jagdish Kumar has filed this complaint earlier on 16.2.2015. Both the parties have led their respective evidence and this Forum decided the said complaint on 3.9.2015 and dismissed this complaint with liberty to approach the Civil Court as per law. Perusal of the first complaint as well as the present second complaint shows that the parties are same and the relief sought is also the same.
3. Now the question arises whether the second complaint is maintainable or whether this Forum have power to review its own order. This question has arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Versus Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. 2011 (4) CLT-527 (SC) wherein it was held that.-
“36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.”
4. In view of the above citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, there is no merit in the present complaint, so the same cannot be admitted and accordingly dismissed at initial stage. However the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court as per law, if he desires so. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
3rd Day of May 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
