APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner | : | Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Advocate | For the Respondent | : | Ms.Surabhi Guleria, Advocate |
ORDER PER MR. C.VISWANATH, MEMBER The present First Appeal is filed Under Section 19 read with Section 21 (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Appellant against Ex-parte Interim Orders dated 02.08.2016, 23.08.2016, 21.09.2016 and 09.12.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in C.C. No. 18 of 2016. Brief facts of the Case are as follows:- The Respondent, a Co-operative Bank, obtained an Insurance Policy from the Appellant (i.e. Insurance Company) insuring the losses under various perils as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Contract. During the internal audit at Jalna Branch, the Respondent noticed that there was huge misappropriation by its Branch Manager, Mr. Gopal Agrawal. He confessed to the misappropriation and revealed the modus-operandi adopted by him. Immediately after obtaining the required details, a Complaint was lodged in Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna and an offence was registered against the employee. The Respondent had also given immediate intimation of loss to the Appellant , who had issued the Policy, covering the risk towards loss on account of misappropriation by an employee upto Rs. 30,00,000/-. Thereafter, a Surveyor was appointed by the Appellant, who after considering all the relevant documents confirmed the loss of Rs. 10,56,08,430/- caused to the Respondent. However, after making various deductions, the final net loss was quantified at Rs. 6,72,21,709/-. The Appellant, however, repudiated the claim of the Respondent vide letter dated 23.06.2014. The Complaint has been filed in the State Commission by the Respondent for an insurance claim of Rs. 30,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of detection of loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of Complaint. During the hearing of the said matter in the State Commission, the Respondent sent a Private Notice to the Appellant. Further, the State Commission observed that despite service of private notice, as per postal acknowledgement produced by the Respondent, Appellant was not present. Hence, the Complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant and right to file written statement was curtailed by the State Commission. Appellant came before this Hon’ble Commission challenging the Ex-parte Interim Orders passed by the State Commission. The grounds for filing the present First Appeal before this Commission are as follows:- The State Commission has not performed its minimum obligation under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, viz. to refer a copy of Complaint by Notice to the Appellant. The Learned State Commission vide its impugned orders have denied the Appellant an opportunity to file its Written Statement and defend itself before the State Commission. The State Commission erred in satisfying itself with the service of the Private Notice Postal Acknowledgment slip pertaining to a document bearing inconsistent particulars and signatures. The Private Notice served on the Appellant is addressed from the letter head of one Santosh G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate bearing signature of S. Gaikwad. Thus, the copy of the Complaint Petition was not served to the Appellant by the State Commission. We have gone through the Ex-parte Interim Orders passed by the Learned State Commission placed before us and heard the arguments. It is clear from Annexure A/4 that a private Notice was sent by the Respondent to the Appellant, instead of the Registry of the State Commission serving a notice along with the Complaint. There is no provision under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for sending private Notice by the Respondent in person to the Appellant. The State Commission erred in proceeding Ex Party without securing a proper Notice to the Appellant. Opportunity of a fair hearing has been denied to the Appellant against the principles of Natural Justice. In view of the above, the present First Appeal is allowed and ex-parte interim orders passed by the State Commission are set aside. This matte is accordingly remanded to the State Commission who may pass appropriate order after giving opportunity to both parties.
List before the State Commission on 05.10.2018. |
