Haryana

StateCommission

A/76/2016

OM TYRES PLAZA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KULDIP SINGH

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 76 of 2016

Date of Institution: 25.01.2016

Date of Decision : 16.01.2017

 

 

M/s Om Tyre Plaza, Jind Road, Bye Pass, Kaithal through its Prop.

     

Appellant–complainant

 Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal near Arya Hospital, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

                                     

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Ram Avtar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s Om Tyre Plaza-complainant has challenged the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was dismissed.

2.      Complainant filed complaint with allegations that he is running a shop and doing business of sale and purchase of new tyres under the name of M/s Om Tyre Plaza.  The shop was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-opposite party for the period 04.01.2012 to 03.01.2013 with sum insured for Rs.9,40,000/-.  On 30.01.2012 theft of tyres valuing at Rs.5,65,194/- including VAT took place.  FIR was lodged on 31.01.2012.  Opposite party was informed and claim being lodged with the opposite party. Opposite party offered Rs.1,90,770/- towards full and final settlement. Complainant did not agree. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite party contested the complaint stating that the surveyor appointed has assessed the loss at Rs.1,90,770/-.  Opposite party further stated that the complainant was asked to receive the amount as full and final settlement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      District Forum after hearing parties dismissed the complaint observing that detailed evidence is required for the fact that whether there was sufficient space or not for the storage of 26 truck tyres/10 truck tyres so it is not possible to decide these facts in the summary proceeding before the District Forum.

5.      Parties have been heard and file perused.

6.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. MERCHANT & ORS. VERSUS SHRINATH CHATURVEDI III(2002) C.P.J. 8 (S.C.) held as under:

“It is next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable drawn delayed procedure, giving amble opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that Legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards. For this purpose we would refer to the procedure prescribed under the Act for disposal of complaint.”

7.      In CCI Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., 2003 AIR SCW 5887 it was held that merely because recording of evidence required on some facts and law which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for denial of trial of the complaint by the District Forum under this Act.  In this case it was also observed that the decisive test is not the complicated nature of the questions of fact and law arising for decision. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a Forum under the Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated method of recording evidence. It has to be remembered that the fora under the Act at every level are headed by experienced persons. The principle laid down in the above mentioned cases are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is held that the dispute raised can be evidently decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties in this regard.

8.      In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal enunciated above, it is held that the District Forum can decide the case under the Consumer Act.  Hence the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the case is remitted back to the District Forum to decide on merits.

8.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 03.02.2017. 

9.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum

 

 

Announced 16.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK