NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 19/08/2009 in Complaint No. 75/2009 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. M/S. SHIVAM JUTE UDYOGThrough Power of Attorney Holder, Sh. Akhilesh Aggarwal, Prop. Smt. Parvati Bai, W/o Sh. Ramnarayan Aggarwal, Near Mahesh Cold Storage, Ruprela Compoundment, BhanpuriRaipurChattisgarh
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. NATONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.Through Managing Director, Regd. Head Office-Middleton Street, Post Box No. 9229Kolkata2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Through Branch Manager, City Branch-1 Navin Bazar, G.E. RoadRaipurChattisgarh3. BANK OF INDIAThrough Branch Manager, Raipur Branch, 2nd FLoor, Ravi Bhawan, G.E. RoadRaipurChattisgarh
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant :
MR. BHUPENDER YADAV
For the Respondent :
MR. KISHORE RAWAT
Dated : 12 Jan 2010
ORDER
Heard counsel appearing on both sides. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter was finally heard. The Appellants had filed complaints Nos.20,21 and 22 of 2006 which were disposed of by the State Commission with following directions after holding that the insurer cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service for closing the case of the Complainant. In the circumstances of the case, the Complainant is directed to file duly filled claim form together with copy of report of Shri S.K. Sur before the insurer within a period of one month from the date of this order. The Insurance Company is directed to consider the amount mentioned in the report of Shri S.K. Sur as estimate of loss and to appoint investigator and take other necessary steps to consider and decide the claim of the Complainant within a period of two months after submission of claim form by the Complainant. Pursuant to the said directions, the Insurance Company had appointed Shri S.K. Kansal, Investigator-cum-Surveyor. It appears that on account of certain family problem regarding ill health of the family member, the Complainant could not meet the appointed surveyor due to which the matter could not be finalized. Since the matter was not decided by the Insurance Company, the present Appellants filed another complaints nos.74, 75 and 76 of 2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the said complaints on the ground that the same were not maintainable on principles of res judicata. The order of the State Commission, prima facie, is not sustainable. Initially, the complaints were not disposed of on merits of the claim but mainly as the same were premature with further directions as quoted above. However, the claim was not finalized and fresh complaints were filed. The complaints filed by the present Appellants were rejected by the State Commission on the ground of principles of res judicata, whereas the principles of res judicata are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the fresh complaints were maintainable. In view of the above, the order of the State Commission is hereby set aside and the State Commission shall deal with the Complaints Nos.74/2009, 75/2009 and 76/2009 in accordance with law. The respondents shall ensure that the investigator-cum-Surveyor submits the report in 4 months and the same is filed before the State Commission. It goes without saying that the Complainants shall cooperate with Investigator-cum-Surveyor. The observation made regarding maintainability are with reference of res judicata alone and the same shall not come in the way of defence of the maintainability on other counts if so taken by the Insurance Company. Parties shall appear before the State Commission on 25.2.2010 for direction. The appeals are disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
