ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.762 of 2004

Mejban Restaurant, Pawan Palace, Samad Road,

Aligarh through partner.                                ….Appellant. 

Versus

1- Canara Bank, Ramghat Road,

    Aligarh through Branch Manager. 

2- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

     Shakha Avas Vikas Bhawan,

     Malviya Pustakalaya, G.T. Road,

     Aligarh through Branch Manager.        …Respondents.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Shri O.P. Duvel for the appellant.

Shir Y.P. Sharma for the respondent.

Date    25.7.2017

ORDER

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.2.2004, passed by the District Forum, Aligarh in complaint case no.404 of 2003.

The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the appellant/complainant had taken an insurance cover from the respondent no.2 against fire and burglary in his business establishment. The complainant had also taken a loan from the respondent no.1 for setting up the business. The fire broke out in the restaurant of the complainant on 7.7.2002 and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.2,08,200.00 due to fire. The complainant asked the OP to reimburse the complainant but the same was not allowed. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint case in the District Forum wherein the respondent no.1 filed their WS refuting the claim of the complainant and stated that

(2)

they did not make any default in showing the particulars of the articles to be insured by the Insurance Company and the fact is that the respondent no.2/OP no.2 had not correctly shown the details of the articles to be insured. Hence, they did not commit any default. The respondent no.2/OP no.2 in their WS mentioned that the claim of the complainant was repudiated in not being in-consonance with the terms of the policy and they did not commit any deficiency in service. After hearing the parties, the ld. Forum passed the order as under:-

          "प्रार्थनापत्र स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी-2 को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादी द्वारा दाखिल दावापत्र को निरीक्षण कर आदेश की तिथि से 30 दिन के अन्‍दर नियमानसार बीमा दावे का भुगतान करेंगे। वाद व्‍यय का रू0500/- भी उपरोक्‍त तिथि में देय होगा। भुगतान न करने की स्थिति में दंडात्‍मक ब्‍याज 8% वार्षिक की दर से आदेश की तिथि से भुगतान की तिथि तक और देय होगा।"

          Feeling aggrieved with this order, the appellant/ complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount awarded. It also transpires that the respondent no.2 the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. had also filed an appeal in the SCDRC wherein an order was passed on 27.3.2006 against which a revision petition no.1693 of 2006 was filed by the respondent United India Insurance Company Ltd. in the Hon'ble National Commission wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has passed an order on 23.2.2015, operative portion of which is as under:-    

          "Therefore, in our considered view the petitioner is liable to reimburse the respondent/complainant to the tune of Rs.69,299.00 against the fire loss any by repudiating the claim the petitioner company has committed deficiency in service. The order for proper reassessment of the damage was passed by the District Forum on 20.2.2004. Had the Insurance Company got the reassessment done in fair manner, the complainant would have got the money way back in the year 2004. Because of the dilatory tactics of the petitioner Company the payment of insurance amount to the complainant has been unnecessarily delayed.

(3)

Therefore, the respondent/complainant is entitled to interest on delayed payment. Thus, we direct the petitioner to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.69,299.00 with 18% thereon w.e.f. 31.3.2004 till the date of payment.

          Petitioner to comply with the order within 30 days failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to recover the amount by moving execution application."

          So now the Hon'ble NCDRC has given a finality to the matter so far as the impugned order in this appeal is also concerned.

          In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC, this Commission has got no jurisdiction to pass any order with regard to impugned order which has been disposed of in the aforesaid revision petition. Therefore, now this appeal is to be dismissed in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC in revision petition no.1693 of 2006.

          Order accordingly.   

                 (Vijai Varma)                   (Sanjai Kumar)

               Presiding Member                       Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.3