Aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2010 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 552 of 2010, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. We have heard Mr. S. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Raipur in complaint case No. 360 of 2009. By the said order, the District Consumer Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants seeking compensation form the insurance company for repudiating the claim on unjustifiable grounds. In appeal, several contentions were raised against the order of the District Consumer Forum and on consideration of the same, the State Commission set -3- aside the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the District Consumer Forum by observing as under:- “6. We have considered the aforesaid arguments and perused the order of the District Forum in light of the aforesaid arguments. We find that in paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order, there was a mention that loss to the vehicle, was assessed by the Surveyor, but, there appears nothing on the basis of which, it can be presumed that District Forum ad considered this fact that the insured vehicle, was in fact traced during the investigation by the Police and was found in burnt condition and thereafter loss was assessed. The sale of salvage is a new fact, which also requires consideration. If the Insurance Company has come up before the District Forum with a pleading that loss to the vehicle, was assessed by a competent Surveyor on the instructions of the Insurance Company with the consent of the complainant and in the whole of the written version, there is nothing on the basis of which, it can be said that Insurance Company rejected the Report of the Surveyor, then this fact become very much important and needs to be considered by the District Forum for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum for fresh consideration of the matter in the light of the Report of the Surveyor, in the light of the Report of Investigation of the Police and in the light of allegation of sale of salvage by Akshay Toyota, Raipur to a third person. After having considered the aforesaid questions, the matter be decided afresh on merits. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum, Raipur on 10.01.2011. No order as to the cost of this appeal.” -4- Mr. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the order passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the District Consumer Forum after bestowing its thoughtful consideration, has dismissed the complaint giving cogent reasons for the same and, therefore, the State Commission was not justified in upsetting the said order and remanding the complaint back to the District Consumer Forum for fresh consideration and decision. We have noted down the submission simply to be rejected because it would appear to us also that the complaint has not received the kind of consideration as it ought to. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, respective pleas taken by the parties and the evidence and the material brought on record, in our view, the order passed by the State Commission is justified and does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, we dismiss the revision petition accordingly at this stage. It is however, made clear that all the pleas taken by the parties shall -5- receive due consideration by the District Forum. No order as to costs. |
