Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/12/35

ms aSHA oIL iNDUSTIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Mar 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 08.12.2011 passed in C.C.No.464/2011 by the District Commission, Gwalior)

 

M/S ASHA OIL INDUSTRIES.                                                                          …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                           …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

25.03.2022

 

          Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Vishnu Tiwari for Shri Vikas Rai, learned counsel for the respondent.

           

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :            

                         This appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is directed against the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (For short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.464/2011, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant is dismissed relegating the complainant to approach Civil Court for his grievance.

2.                The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party for not giving insurance claim of insured tanker which was lost during transit.  It is alleged by the complainant that the oil tanker left Malanpur District-Bhind on 06.03.2009 for its delivery in Kolkata which was lost during transit, of which FIR was lodged in the Police Station and the insurance company was also informed. On claim being filed, the opposite party insurance company did not decide the complainant’s

-2-

claim.  The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant has not supplied certain relevant documents, necessary for deciding his claim.   Therefore, the claim could not be decided.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court on the ground that the matter involved complicated questions and hence cannot be decided in summary proceedings by the District Commission.  Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission erroneously dismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter cannot be decided by the District Commission, on the basis that it involved complicated questions.  He argued that the matter can be very well decided by the District Commission, in summary proceedings, as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  He therefore argued that the impugned order be set-aside and this appeal be allowed.

7.                Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order and the record, we find that the District Commission has clearly held that the complainant in compliance of the demand of the opposite party-insurance company had provided relevant documents to them.  Further it is specified that as per surveyor’s report the claim is not found to be non-genuine.

-3-

However, subsequently it is held that the matter cannot be decided by the District Commission and directed the complainant to approach Civil Court.

9.                In our considered view, the District Commission ought to have commented on merits of the matter by specifically restricting to the issue of entitlement of relief to the complainant. by considering all the aspects involved in the case, on the basis of evidence available in the record of the District Commission, rather then relegating the matter to the Civil Court.  The District Commission, other than the incongruity, ought to have made an observation on the specific claim, regarding which the complaint was filed.

10.               In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded back the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits, in accordance with law.

11.               Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 25.04.2022.

11.               Record of the District Commission be sent at the earliest.

12.               The District Commission is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as but not later than three months from the date of appearance of parties.

13.               With the observations and directions as aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

 

                 (Dr. Monika Malik)                           (S. S. Bansal)             

                  Presiding Member                               Member