PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in appeal No. 29 of 2007, the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the -2- present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the original complainant Shri Hari Om Attri against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum-I, UT Chandigarh in the complaint case No. 599 of 2006 and the District Forum dismissed the said complaint claiming compensation from the Insurance Company. The State Commission allowed the appeal by directing the petitioner-insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant at Rs. 33,173/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from two months after the submission of the survey report till actual payment. 2. We have heard Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company but had not the advantage of the hearing the say of the respondent as none was present at the time of hearing the petition, although the respondent was represented earlier through a counsel named Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate and Ms. Rubi Sharma. The Commission issued notice to the counsel for the respondent for today’s hearing as far back as on 01.6.2012, which has not been returned back therefore, there is presumption of service of the notice. 3. Mr. Nandwani would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that after the complainant purchased the vehicle from Mrs. -3- Meeta Jauhar, neither did he apply to the petitioner-insurance company for the transfer of insurance in his name, nor he deposited the transfer fee required under the relevant rules. No such proof was filed from the side of the complainant and therefore, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. However, in the appeal proceedings the complainant filed certain documents i.e. application seeking transfer of the insurance and alleging that requisite fee was also paid. Mr. Nandwani states that the State Commission was not justified in entertaining the said material at the appeal stage once it was not filed before the First Forum and that the entire finding of the State Commission is based on assumptions and presumptions and without there being any basis. In our view, , if any, fresh material was sought to be produced by the complainant before the State Commission, it should have been done with the permission of the State Commission and if the additional material was to be entertained, the matter ought to have been remanded back for the consideration of the District Forum as the order of the District Forum was passed without these documents and pleas. Although, the matter involves is of a few thousand of rupees but having regard to the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, we are of the view that the matter requires a thorough consideration by the District Forum in particular, to examine whether any -4- request for transfer of insurance was made by the complainant at the time of transfer of the vehicle or after the vehicle was transferred in his favour. 4. The Revision Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The complaint is remitted to the District Forum No.I, UT, Chandigarh for deciding the complaint afresh in the above terms. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 29.08.2012. | 
