Delhi

StateCommission

FA/369/2014

ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K. PODDAR - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:30.01.2018

 

First Appeal- 369/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 25.03.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 803/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi)

 

ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

23, Narain Manzil, 3^rd Floor,

Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

R.K. Poddar,

Owner/CMD,

Poddar Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd.,

J-62, Patel Nagar-1,

Ghaziabad-201001.

.….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 

 1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.                This is an appeal wherein challenge is made to order dated 25.3.14 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.803/2009 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed.

 

 

2.                Briefly the facts are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent/complainant stating therein that he is running a Nursing Home.  In March 2006, appellant/OP approached him and proposed to insure entire machinery in his Nursing Home through an Electronic Equipment Insurance Policy.  The respondent/complainant agreed to purchase the aforesaid policy and deposited proposal form and paid premium of Rs.37,148/-.  The cheque was encashed but policy was not issued.  Despite repeated requests, appellant/OP had issued policy titled Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy bearing No.1001/00491131.  It was alleged that on 28.8.06, the Image Intensifier Machine was damaged.  Appellant/OP was informed about it.  A surveyor was appointed to assess the loss.  The surveyor filed a report of loss.  However, the appellant/OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the loss was not covered under the policy.  Thereafter respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3.                Counsel for the appellant/OP submitted that after completion of pleading and evidence, the matter was heard by the District Forum. However, before the order could be passed, the parties approached the Delhi Govt. Mediation & Conciliation Centre where the matter was amicably settled for a sum of Rs.1,70,948/-.  It is stated that in compliance of settlement arrived at between the parties, payment was also made to the respondent/complainant on 17.4.13 vide cheque bearing No.991384 for a sum of Rs.1,70,948/- dated 11.4.13.  It is stated that an application was also moved before the District Forum by appellant/OP for disposing of the matter on the basis of settlement.  The application remained pending.  It is stated that despite compliance of settlement arrived at between the parties before Delhi Govt. Mediation & Conciliation Centre, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.3.14 and directed the appellant/OP to pay Rs.1,70,948/- with interest @ 12% from the date of repudiation till payment.  The District Forum also awarded punitive damages of Rs.15 lacs upon appellant/OP for malpractices, unfair trade practices and for indulging in false pleas before the District Forum.

4.                Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.     

5.                Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that the matter was finally settled between the parties on 14.3.13 before the Delhi Govt. Mediation & Conciliation Centre and settlement agreement was placed on record before the District Forum and compliance was also done and payment was also made in terms of settlement and necessary proof was filed before the District Forum.  Application dated 22.4.13 was also filed before the District Forum for taking on record the settlement.  Despite that District Forum passed the impugned order ignoring the material on record of settlement.

6.                Appeal was admitted on 17.4.14.  Thereupon notice was issued to respondent/complainant. AR of the respondent/complainant appeared only once on 12.2.15. Thereafter the matter was listed for number of dates and none appeared on behalf of respondent/complainant nor any reply to appeal was filed on behalf of respondent/complainant.       

7.                We have perused the material on record which shows that matter has been amicably settled before the Delhi Govt. Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 14.3.13.  The settlement is duly signed by both the parties.  There is also an application on behalf of the appellant/OP for disposal of the complaint as matter was amicably settled.  Even the terms of settlement stood complied before passing of the impugned order. The impugned order is passed on 25.3.14 i.e. after about one year of the settlement between the parties.  The Ld. District Forum did not mention anything about settlement. It appears the settlement filed escaped the attention of the Ld. District Forum.  When the matter had already been settled between the parties, the District Forum ought not have decided the case on merits. The respondent/complainant has also not challenged the settlement either before the District Forum or before us.  In these circumstances, the settlement is binding on the parties. 

8.                In view of above discussion, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order and consequently dispose of the complaint i.e. CC No.803/09 in term of settlement dated 14.3.13 arrived at between the parties before the Delhi Govt. Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 

9.                A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. Record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.  Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member