APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Advocate Mr. Sirikanth Nayak, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent 1 Mr. Harpreet Singh Oberoi, in person For Respondent 2 to 4 Mr. Rajesh K. Gupta, Advocate for Arkay & Arkay PRONOUNCED ON : 12th MAY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.07.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 1250/2007, riental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. versus Harpreet Singh Oberoi vide which the order dated 19.07.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, allowing the said complaint, was ordered to be modified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Harpreet Singh Oberoi was working as sales representative with OP-3, Mirasu Mkt. Ltd., Mumbai at Jalandhar (Now Dabur India Ltd., the petitioner). OP-3 purchased a personal accident insurance policy from the present petitioner with Policy No. 121300/42/2004/180. The complainant met with an accident on 07.06.2004 and received injuries on his body. He remained admitted in the hospital till 13.06.2004. The matter was reported to the local police and an FIR was registered at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar. Even after his discharge from the hospital, the complainant continued to be under treatment and as stated by him, he suffered 50% disability. The complainant filed insurance claim with the petitioner and presented the necessary documents, like bills, prescription slips, payment receipts etc. demanding a sum of `_1,85,000/-. As stated in the complaint filed before the District Forum, it was alleged that the petitioners/OP had neither settled the claim nor sent any reply to him. The complainant sought direction to the respondents/OPs to make payment of ` 1,85,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. and also compensation of ` 7,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. In their reply filed before the District Forum, OP-3 Mirasu Mkt. Ltd. stated that the complaint was not maintainable against them as there was no contract between the complainant and OP-3. OP-3 had written many letters to the complainant to pursue his case and supply documents to the insurance company. OP-3 further maintained that the complainant was not a consumer, vis-a-vis, OP-3. Further, the complainant used to work at Mumbai and hence, the District Forum at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the matter. The present OP 1 & 2 also filed their written version before the District Forum saying that the necessary documents were not supplied by the complainant to them and hence, the claim could not be decided. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, directed vide their order dated 19.07.2007 that the Insurance Company should pay the claim amount of ` 1,85,000/- to the complainant, while OP-3, the employer should pay interest @9% p.a. on the amount of the claim and should also pay ` 5,000/- as compensation for non-supply of documents in time and ` 3000/- as cost of litigation. 4. An appeal was filed against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission by the Insurance Company. No appeal was filed by the employer Mirasu Marketing Limited. The State Commission vide impugned order came to the conclusion that the order dated 19.07.2007 required modification, because the employer/OP-3 had also done deficiency in service by not supplying the requisite documents. The State Commission ordered that all three respondents including the Insurance Company and the employer would be jointly and severally liable to pay the entire amount of `_1,85,000/-. They, however, maintained the order of the District Forum directing OP-3 to pay interest @9% p.a. on the claim amount of ` 1,85,000/-, ` 5000/- as compensation and ` 3000/- as litigation cost. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 5. It has been stated by the petitioner in the revision petition that M/s Mirasu Marketing Ltd. which was OP-3 in the complaint before the District Forum was amalgamated with M/s Femcare Pharma Limited in a scheme of arrangement, presented under section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Scheme was accorded approval by the High Court of adjudicature at Bombay vide order dated 07.07.2004, passed in company petition no. 350/2008, etc. M/s Femcare Pharma Limited was further amalgamated with the petitioner Dabur India Limited. In another similar scheme of arrangement, it was accorded approval by the Honle High Court of Bombay vide order dated 07.05.2010. Hence, the petitioner had stepped into the shoes of M/s. Mirasu Marketing Limited and had filed the present revision petition. 6. At the time of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the only dispute involved in the present case is the non-supply of two documents to the insurance company, namely, the salary certificate and the sanction order for the grant of leave to the complainant employee. In so far as the factum of issuance of Policy and the liability of the insurance company to meet the claim under the policy was concerned, there was no issue raised in the case, that such a claim was not payable. In fact, the submission of these two documents was not in any way concerned with the payment of claim, as the claim was regarding the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred and these are payable under the terms and conditions of the Policy. In case, the petitioner failed to submit these documents, such documents could be submitted by the complainant himself. The complainant is supposed to be in possession of salary certificate or the sanction order for granting the leave. Moreover, the District Forum as well as the State Commission had observed in their order that the documents asked for by the Insurance Company were not relevant and the claim could be decided, even in the absence of these documents. The learned counsel further stated that as per direction given by the District Forum regarding the payment of interest on claim amount and compensation etc., the petitioner had already complied with the order, rather they never challenged this part of the order before the State Commission. The learned counsel argued that the order of the State Commission vide which the petitioner had been held to be jointly and severally liable for reimbursement of claim was perverse in the eyes of law. The liability to pay the claim amount rested solely with the insurance company and hence, the present petition should be accepted and order of the District Forum upheld. 7. The learned counsel for respondent 2 to 4/ OP 1 & 2 Insurance Company stated that it had been admitted by the petitioner in the ynopsisand the ates of eventsattached with the revision petition that the complainant/respondent no. 1 was guilty of non-performance of his duty as he did not ask for supply of requisite documents, which were required to be sent to the Insurance Company. The learned counsel stated that the claim had been rightly repudiated by the insurance company for supply of relevant documents. The details of the required documents had been provided in the circular dated 20.08.2004, issued by the insurance company. In a letter sent to the complainant dated 31.05.2003, it had been indicated that for settlement of claim, a certificate of leave/absence from duty was required. Since the petitioner/OP-3 had not supplied the documents, they were liable for joint liability. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld. 8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. There is no denying the fact that the insurance policy in question has been obtained by the complainant from the insurance company through his employer, who is the present petitioner, and under the said Insurance policy, the complainant is liable to get a claim of `_1,85,000/-. The Insurance Company did not settle the claim on the ground that two documents, viz., certificate of absence from duty and salary certificate had not been made available to them. The District Forum, however, reached the conclusion that sufficient documents had already been given to the insurance company for deciding the claim and they could have made payment on the basis of those documents. The act and conduct of the Insurance Company in demanding more documents was not justified and amounted to deficiency in service. The District Forum held that the insurance company was liable to make payment of claim of ` 1,85,000/-. They also held that for failure of OP-3/Petitioner in not supplying the documents, they were liable to pay interest on the said amount @9% p.a., ` 5,000/- as compensation and ` 3,000/- as cost of litigation. The present petitioner did not challenge the order of the District Forum in so far as the grant of interest, compensation or litigation cost was concerned, and hence that part of the order has attained finality. The State Commission, on the other hand, in appeal filed before them by the insurance company, reached the conclusion that the entire controversy was created due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP-3 in not supplying the requisite documents and they held the petitioner/OP-3 to be jointly and severally liable for payment of the entire amount in addition to interest and other compensation imposed. 9. From the material on record, we do not find any justification to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission. The salary certificate etc. is required to calculate the temporary total disablement. In the present case, compensation for the expenses incurred on treatment of the complainant has been claimed by the complainant. The factum of his accident has not been denied by other party. It is quite clear that the Insurance Company have unnecessarily raised the issue of non-supply of two documents. We agree with the contention of the District Forum that sufficient documents had already been submitted to the Insurance Company and they were not justified in demanding more documents. 10. In the light of the position stated above, there does not seem to be any justification for putting liability on the petitioner for payment of the amount claimed jointly and severally with the Insurance Company. The District Forum ordered payment of interest on the amount claimed and some compensation by the petitioner and the said direction was not challenged by the petitioner and hence, it has attained finality. However, the direction of the State Commission to make payment of the claimed amount jointly and severally with the Insurance Company deserves to be set aside. 11. The present revision petition is, therefore, allowed in view of the facts stated above and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside, the order passed by the District Forum is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.