Haryana

StateCommission

MA/06/2016

M/s National Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunil Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Misc. Application No.06 of 2016

Date of Institution:    16.02.2016

Date of Decision :    11.04.2016

                     In

First Appeal No  :   543 of 2015

 

M/s National Insurance Company Limited, 5-C, 1 & 2 B.P. Railway Road, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad-121001 through its Divisional Manager, Registered Office: 3 Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkatta-700071.

Now through its authorized signatory Archna Aggarwal, Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Sunil Kumar s/o late Shri Lala Ram, Resident of Jeeva Nagar, Gaunchhi, Near Shyam Medical Store, Faridabad, Haryana.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      M/s Trumph Auto Private Limited, 20/12, Mujessar More, Opposite Orient Fan Company, YMCA, Delhi Mathura Road, Faridabad.

                                      Applicant (Opposite Party No.2)

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate for applicant/Opposite Party No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of the Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2016 filed by M/s Trumph Auto Private Limited-Opposite Party.

2.      Sunil Kumar-complainant/respondent No.1, owned car bearing registration No.HR-38R-4358, Tata Indica. It was insured with National Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party/appellant for Rs.4,59,745/-. During the subsistence of the Insurance Policy the car was damaged in an accident. F.I.R. No.380 (Exhibit R-1/5) was lodged in Police Station Roorkee, Haridwar.  The surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.2,70,274.13 vide report Exhibit R-7. However, according to the complainant the damage of the car was to the extent of Rs.6,21,615/-. He filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint bearing complaint No.508 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’).     The opposite parties contested complaint. Vide order dated April 17^th, 2015, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“….Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/-, repair bill raised by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

3.      The Insurance Company filed First Appeal No.543 of 2015 before this Commission. Vide order dated December 4^th, 2015 The appeal was partly allowed and the order of the District Forum was modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.2,70,274/- to the complainant instead of Rs.4.00 lacs. Rest of the order of the District Forum was upheld.

4.      Now the Opposite Party No.2/applicant, has filed the instant application praying that the amount be paid to the applicant.

5.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Another, IV (2011), CPJ 35, (S.C), has observed that “The District Consumer Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.” That besides applicant is neither the complainant nor aggrieved of any order, cannot seek modification of order.

6.      In view of the above, this Commission has no power to review its own order.  Hence, the application is dismissed. 

  

Announced 11.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL