NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/859/2017

M.K. SETHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. R.K. KOHLI & CO.

10 Mar 2022

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 859 OF 2017
 
(Against the Order dated 03/11/2016 in Appeal No. 58/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. M.K. SETHI
C-3/117, SECTOR XI, ROHINI
DELHI-110085
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISION OFFICE IV,UGF 8,11,12 & 13, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate

Dated : 10 Mar 2022
ORDER

1.         Repeatedly called out.       

No one appears for the petitioner. 

2.         This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 03.11.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 58 of 2008 arising out of the Order dated 20.07.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 1062 of 2002.

3.         A perusal of the record shows that the matter relates to an insurance claim. The District Commission vide its Order dated 20.07.2007 had accepted the complaint and ordered the opposite party insurance company (the respondent herein) to pay an amount of Rs.2,28,977/- to the complainant for the loss along with compensation of Rs.44,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-. The State Commission allowed in part the appeal preferred by the insurance company and ordered it to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.16,415/- for the loss along with compensation of Rs.40,000/- inclusive of cost of litigation. The insurance company has not agitated the Order of the State Commission. The complainant has preferred the instant revision petition seeking Rs. 2,28,977/- as the loss i.e. as claimed in the complaint and as also awarded by the District Commission with interest at the rate of 18% per annum..

4.         We notice that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order. Inter alia observing that the “District Forum acted as if it was Architect or Civil Engineer”, it has given credence to the quantum of loss “as assessed by the surveyor” of the insurance company i.e. Rs. 16,415/-. In other words, it has found no cogent reason or good ground to differ with the surveyor’s assessment.

5.         On the face of it we do not notice any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity in the State Commission’s impugned Order. As such we have no hesitation in dismissing the petition in default in the absence of the petitioner today.

6.         The instant revision petition no. 859 of 2017 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

7.         The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in this petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.          

 
......................
DINESH SINGH
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................J
KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
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.