Ramesh Kumar Maini filed a consumer case on 21 Jan 2016 against NIC in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/1316/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 05 Feb 2016.
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1316 of 2014
Date of Institution: 22.09.2014
Date of Decision: 21.01.2016
Ramesh Kumar Maini, CW-564, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi
…Appellant/Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, having branch office at Ist Floor, Kotkapura Road, Opposite Water Works, Muktsar through its Branch Manager/Person overall incharge.
..Respondent /Complainant
First Appeal against order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri.H.S.Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Gaurav Jindal, Advocate
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 20.08.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib, returning the complaint of the complainant along with documents. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant in this appeal.
2. The complainant Ramesh Kumar Maini has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he purchased Truck bearing registration no.HR-38-P-5237 Tata LPT - 2515 TC 2005 from Manorma Devi Delhi in 2009 and its insurance was transferred in the name of the complainant. The insurance was further renewed from 09.03.2010 to 08.03.2011 and insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.9 lac, vide insurance policy no.401703/31/09/6300001254. The officials of Muktsar Branch Office transferred this policy in the name of the complainant, vide endorsement no.6382000319 valid up to 08.03.2010 and then renewed from 09.03.2010 to 08.03.2011. The truck met with an accident on 12.07.2010 near Forest Guest House Sonabhadra during currency period of the policy. Sh. Ashwani Sethi was appointed as surveyor, who assessed the loss. The total loss was of Rs.8,98,500/- and on repair basis, it was assessed for Rs.7,48,500/- plus extra for concealed parts after dismantling. The OP has not paid the claim to the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against OP directing them to pay Rs.7,72,600/- along with interest @ 12% per annum, besides compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. The complainant got insured his vehicle bearing no. HR38/5237 Tata LT 2515 PC 2005 under policy in question bearing no.401703/31/09/6300001254 from 09.03.2010, to 08.03.2011 with 20% No Claim Bonus. The complainant has not stated at the time of getting the insurance policy on 09.03.2010 on which date he purchased the vehicle from first owner. As per rules and regulations, any party can claim 'no claim bonus' if his prior policy remained continued for a period of one year, but in the present case, the claim of the complainant was repudiated due to said reason as the complainant claimed 'no claim bonus', which was not permissible as the previous transferred policy had not completed one year and it was short of 16 days from 27.3.09 to 8.03.2010. The complex questions of facts and law are involved in the present case and voluminous evidence is required for settlement of the controversy in this case and it cannot be decided in a summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum. OP contested the complaint even on merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C10. As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Iqbal Singh Assistant Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd Branch Sri Muktsar Sahib Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib returned the complaint to the complainant by virtue of detailed order dated 20.08.2014. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 20.08.2014, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the case. We find that District Forum observed in the order that surveyor's report is immediate requirement of law to appreciate the facts and actual loss. Without survey report, it is not feasible to appreciate the facts of the case and District Forum returned the complaint to the complainant. We have come to the conclusion on hearing submissions of counsel for the parties that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The complaint can be returned only, if the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try it or no cause of action accrued within its jurisdiction. The District Forum primarily returned the complaint for want of surveyor's report. This matter is pertaining to the realm of appreciation of evidence only. The District Forum rather returned the complaint of the complainant without deciding it on merits in an illegal manner. The order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The District Forum has to decide the complaint on its merits alone in accordance with law.
6. As a result of our above discussion, we set aside the order of the District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 20.08.2014 and accept the appeal of the appellant and remand the case to District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib with a direction to decide the case on its merits in accordance with law.
7. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before District Forum concerned on 03.03.2016. Record of the District Forum be sent back forthwith so as to reach there well before the date fixed and record of this Commission be consigned.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.01.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
(H.S GURAM)
MEMBER
January 21, 2016
(ravi)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.