NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/885/2017

JAI GOVIND RAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 885 OF 2017
 
(Against the Order dated 28/12/2016 in Appeal No. 209/2011 of the State Commission Bihar)
1. JAI GOVIND RAI
S/O. SH. KAMTA RAI, PROPRIETOR HOMEO HALL, R/O. MAUZA AKHLASPUR, P.S. BHABHUA,
DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABHUA)
BIHAR
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & 2 ORS.
BRANCH OFFICE MAIN MARKET RANCHI DEHRI ON SHON,
DISTRICT-ROHTAS
BIHAR
2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.
BRANCH OFFICE RAJ LAKHAN COMPLEX, G.T. ROAD,
SASARAM (ROHTAS)
BIHAR
3. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA
A.D.V., BRANCH
BHABHUA (KAIMUR)
BIHAR
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent :
For the Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Mithilesh Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3 : NEMO

Dated : 22 Mar 2018
ORDER

1.       Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.3 is a formal party against whom no relief is claimed. In view of the above, issue of notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

2.       This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Bihar dated 28th December, 2016 in first appeal No.209/2011 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum concerned dismissing the complaint.

3.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that it is a cryptic order without reference to the grounds of appeal taken by the petitioner before the State Commission as also his submissions and amounts to violation of principle of natural justice.

4.       Relevant observations of the State Commission dealing with the grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: -

“We have considered the grounds of appeal as also the impugned order. It would appear that the District Forum has considered the issue with respect to the burning of the shop. The complainant alleged that the fire caught due to the short circuit, which was not found by the surveyor after inspection. The District Forum has passed the detailed order on considering the evidence brought on record by both sides and having found that the complainant could not sustainable the aforesaid complaint was as such dismissed. The District Forum has passed the order on the basis of the evidence on record.”

 

5.       On bare reading of the above, it is clear that the order is non-speaking without making any reference to the grounds taken in the appeal and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, who was appellant before the State Commission. The impugned order therefore being violative of principle of natural justice cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission, Bihar with the direction to decide the appeal on merits after due hearing to the parties.

6.       Parties to appear before the State Commission on 27.4.2018.

 
......................J
AJIT BHARIHOKE
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.