Haryana

StateCommission

MA/112/2016

Satyawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Miscellaneous Application No.112 of 2016

                                             In

First Appeal No  :      1013 of 2015

Date of Institution:        05.09.2016

Date of Decision :         28.09.2016

 

Satyawan son of Sh. Raghubir Singh, resident of Ward No.13, Meham, District Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Applicant/Appellant

Versus

 

1.      National Insurance Company Limited, Division Office No.1, Outer Quila Road, Rohtak, through its Divisional Manager.         

2.      Hyundai Showroom, Bahadurgarh, through its Manager.

3.      Sristi Hyundai Showroom, Sukhapura Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana.

Respondents-opposite parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                           

Present:              Shri Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for applicant/appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          Satyawan-complainant (applicant herein) filed First Appeal No.1013 of 2015 against the order dated October 29^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

2.      Complainant was owner of a car (Santro) bearing registration No.HR-15B-2666.  The car was insured with National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’).  During the period of insurance policy, the car met with an accident.  The Insured Declared Value of the car was Rs.3,88,969/-. 

3.      The Insurance Company settled the claim of the complainant at Rs.1,95,000/- in full and final settlement.  The complainant executed consent letter (Exhibit R-4) and Discharge Voucher (Exhibit C-7) respectively. 

4.      On July 22^nd, 2016, complainant’s appeal was dismissed on merits after perusing the record and hearing learned counsel for the Insurance Company. It is pertinent to mention here that neither complainant nor his counsel has appeared on the date fixed, that is, July 22^nd, 2016. 

5.      By filing the present application, complainant seeks review of the order dated July 22^nd, 2016 passed by this Commission.

6.      Since the appeal has already been decided vide order dated July 22^nd, 2016, this Commission is not empowered to review its own decision in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another, IV (2011), CPJ 35, (S.C). 

7.      Hence, the application is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 28.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President