Haryana

StateCommission

RA/25/2023

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK - Opp.Party(s)

YOGESH GUPTA

26 Apr 2024

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Review Application No. RA/25/2023
( Date of Filing : 18 Oct 2023 )
In
First Appeal No. A/349/2020
 
1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
IFFCO TOWER-II, 4TH FLOOR, PLOT NO. 3, SECTOR-29, GURUGRAM
GURUGRAM
HARYANA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DEEPAK
VPO DULHERA, TEH. BADLI, DISTRICT JHAJJAR
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  NARESH KATYAL PRESIDING MEMBER
  MANJULA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Apr 2024
Final Order / Judgement

 

R.A. No.25 of 2023 in                                                         

F.A. No.349 of 2020

Present:     Mr. Yogesh Gupta, counsel for the applicant-appellant.

 

                    First Appeal No.349 of 2020 titled as “IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak” was decided on 11.08.2023 by this Commission. Review Application No.25 of 2023 has been filed against this order / Judgment. Review of order dated 11.08.2023 has been sought primarily on the ground that: no finding of this Commission has come with regard to foremost ground of applicant-appellant, so taken in Memorandum of Appeal  to the effect that assessment of loss  is required to be done as per surveyor’s report. Licensed surveyor, of applicant-appellant, in final surveyor’s report, assessed net loss payable at Rs.4,31,000/- on repair basis. On this aspect; counsel for applicant-appellant has put forward his contention before this Commission while addressing arguments in main appeal and this Commission was required to give finding on above contention, which has not been done by it while deciding first appeal on 11.08.2023, thereby warranting review of order dated 11.08.2023.  

 2.               On analyzing above contention, this Commission is of firm view that Review Application No.25 of 2023 has no merit and credence. Reason is obvious. The quality of contention so put forward by learned counsel for applicant-appellant, while seeking review, as noted above, has acquired enormous ramifications at legal pedestal. It has the effect of totally altering and changing the integral part of order dated 11.08.2023, which is legally not permissible. Had, applicant-appellant been aggrieved because of non-consideration of its contention by this Commission while deciding First Appeal No.349 of 2020 through order dated 11.08.2023, then, nothing stopped aggrieved applicant-appellant to avail remedy of filing appeal / revision before Higher Authorities, which has not been done by it. This being so, this Review application No.25 of 2023, sans merit and thus dismissed. Review Application file be consigned to record room to be tagged along with F.A. No.349 of 2020 decided on 11.08.2023.

 

April, 26th, 2024                                             Manjula                                  Naresh Katyal                                                                                    Member                                  Judicial Member

                                                                        Addl. Bench-I                                    Addl. Bench-I           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ NARESH KATYAL]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[ MANJULA]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.