In the complaint case the District Forum vide its order dated 04.01.2006 had decided the complaint and passed the following order:

“Resultantly, complaint of the complainants is partly allowed and it is ordered that –

Respondent nos.1.2 and 5 are directed to pay within 30 days of the date of this order to be complainants compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- but subject to limitation of the liability provided in the insurance policy of the insurance company;

Besides above, the complainants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the from the above named respondents with effect from the date of accident on 12.08.2004 and complainants are further entitled to a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards expenses of the complaint;

In case, respondents fail to pay the above amounts within stipulated period, they will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum”.    

2.     An appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 05.11.2018 has passed the following order :

“Having gone through the order passed by the Forum on 04.01.2016 in complaint case no.23 of 2005 and the order dated 25.08.2016 passed by the State Commission in appeal no.1026 of 2006, we find that the liability so far as it relates to the petitioners and respondent nos.2/ insurance company have already been settled and as such the forum has committed no error in rejecting petitioners prayer for directing the insurance company to produce the policy. The said prayer, if allowed would amount to reopening of the entire matter and will amount to going behind back of the decree. It is also noteworthy that the policy was already filed in the original complaint case and after considering the same, the order was passed by the forum and the same was affirmed by the State Commission.

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. The revision petition is dismissed.”

3.     No revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the above order of the State Commission hence, the order of the State Commission attained finality. The complainant filed an execution appeal executing the order of the State Commission dated 25.08.2009 before the District Forum. The petitioner filed an application before the District Forum to issue directions to the insurance company to file copy of the insurance policy, to decide the bifurcation of liability of the parties. The revision petition no. 116 of 2014 was filed before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed this revision petition vide order dated 05.11.2018.

4.     Hence, the present revision petition.

5.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. He states that as the final decree was not clear about the sharing of liability between the petitioner and the Insurance Company, and same could not have been decided without perusal of the policy document, the petitioner filed an application before the District Forum to direct the insurance company to file the copy of the policy. However, this application was dismissed by the District Forum. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the State Commission. However, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal. The result is that the matter is still pending before the District Forum for execution of the order dated 25.08.2009 of the State Commission. It will be difficult for the District Forum to decide apportionment of liability of the insurance company as well as the petitioner herein. In the impugned order the State Commission has also upheld the order of the District Forum, however, the State Commission has also observed that the liability of the insurance company was already decided to be Rs.15,000/- whereas there is no such finding in the order of the State Commission dated 25.09.2009.

6.     Learned counsel has stated that he may also be allowed to file copy of the policy before the District Forum. However, it should be made clear that the apportionment of liability of the parties by the State Commission shall not be considered by the District Forum in the main execution case.

7.     I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. It is true that the State Commission observed in its order dated 25.08.2009 in paragraph no.5 that the learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the liability of the insurance company in that case is limited to Rs.15,000/-, however, in the final order of the State Commission it has only stated that the liability of the insurance company will be limited to the provisions made in the insurance policy. Thus, there is no confirmation of the liability of the insurance company to be Rs.15,000/- only. It is also not clear when the policy was supplied to the petitioner herein then why he did not file the copy before the District Forum and asked for directions to the insurance company to file the policy. In this regard, the learned counsel has stated that the insurance company actually raised objection as the policy was filed by complainant before the District Forum in original in complaint case. Be that as it may, as the order of the State Commission dated 25.08.2009 has stated that the liability of the insurance company shall limit to the provisions in the insurance policy and this order is to be executed, the District Forum may have to decide apportionment as per the provisions in the policy and therefore, the copy of the policy is required to be placed on file of the execution case. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file the copy of the policy before the District Forum, if not already filed and the same may be filed within a period of thirty days from today. If any objection is raised on the copy of the policy, the insurance company may also be allowed to file their copy before the District Forum. The observation made by the State Commission in respect of the liability of the insurance company being limited to Rs.15,000/- will not come in the way of District Forum in deciding the Execution application on the basis of the policy.

8.     On the basis of the above directions, the revision petition no. 2397 of 2019 is disposed of.