Tripura

StateCommission

A/23/2016

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Biswajit Paul - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das , Mr. Kusal Deb

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, TRIPURA

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. Saha,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANADATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR. NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/23/2016

 

 

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Agartala Division,

Mantribari Road, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

[Represented by its Sr. Divisional Manager]

 

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Complainant.

 

                                                           

 

Vs

 

 

1. Sri Biswajit Paul,

S/o Late Abhoy Ch. Paul,

Resident of Churaibari,

P.S. Churaibari, P.O. Churaibari,

District – North Tripura, Pin - 799262

….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants            :         Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Adv.

For the Respondents        :         Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Adv.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment: 15.12.2016.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

This instant appeal is filed by the appellant-opposite party, New India Assurance Company Ltd. under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.CC-42/2015, whereby and where-under the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition filed by the respondent-complainant directing the appellant-opposite party, New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs.3,31,566/- to the respondent-complainant along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the application i.e. 08.05.2015 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

2. Heard Mr. Gitangshu Sekhar Das, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party as well as Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant.
3. Today, as agreed to by the Ld. Counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-opposite party has raised the question of maintainability of the petition filed by the petitioner i.e. respondent-complainant on the ground that once the Ld. District Forum dismissed the earlier complaint petition filed by the respondent-complainant for default, the second petition is wholly barred. He has also pointed out that the Ld. District Forum did not apply its mind while deciding the complaint petition, which would be evident from paragraph 7 and 8 of the judgment wherein the Ld. District Forum has mentioned the name of appellant-opposite party as National Insurance Company and National India Assurance Company whereas the appellant-opposite party is New India Assurance Company Ltd. He has also contended that the Ld. District Forum in its judgment has specifically stated that the claim of the respondent-complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 20.03.2013 and the time would run from that date. Even if not admitting, but for the argument sake, it is admitted that the time will run from the date i.e. 20.03.2013, then also the findings of the Ld. District Forum that the complaint is not time barred, it is not correct as the complaint petition was filed on 08.05.2015 i.e. after 2 years from the date of repudiation.
5. At this stage, Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel for the respondent-complainant has submitted that admittedly, the Ld. District Forum quoted wrong name of the Insurance Company in its judgment and that the complaint petition was filed on 08.05.2015 and the Insurance Company replied to the lawyer notice on 25^th June, 2013. Thus, that would be the actual repudiation. He has finally contended that the matter be remanded to the Ld. District Forum for deciding the matter afresh after providing opportunity to both the parties.
6. Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-opposite party has also agreed to the said proposal of Mr. Bhattacharya.  
7. We have gone through the impugned judgment from which it appears that though the respondent-complainant filed a complaint petition against the Sr. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., but the Ld. District Forum in its findings nowhere mentioned the name of the New India Assurance Company Ltd., rather its whole findings is against the National India Assurance Company Ltd. as well as National Insurance Company. The Ld. District Forum also did not discuss regarding the fact inter alia that the respondent-complainant sent the lawyer notice on 02.05.2013 and the Insurance Company replied to the said notice on 25^th June, 2013.
8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum failed to apply its mind while deciding the complaint petition.
9. As agreed to by both the parties, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld. District Forum to decide afresh after providing opportunity to the parties. As we are remanding the matter, we are not discussing the factual aspects of the case in our judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 18.01.2017.
10. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura