Punjab

Mansa

CC/19/54

Patiala Lace House - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. SK Chhabra

07 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MANSA
PUNJAB
 
Complaint Case No. CC/19/54
( Date of Filing : 07 May 2019 )
 
1. Patiala Lace House
One Way Traffic Road mansa through its Prop. Sameer kumar Chhabra S/o Suraj Kumar Chhabra Advocate mansa
Mansa
punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.
Mansa
Mansa
Punjab
2. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.
SCO-72 Phase 9 Mohali Punjab
Mohali
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  R.L.MITTAL PRESIDENT
  Sharda Attri MEMBER
  Suraj Goyal MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sh. SK Chhabra, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sh. PK Singla, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 07 Dec 2022
Final Order / Judgement
Heard. Admittedly the reliefs sought in the present complaint are part of the same fire incident in respect of which earlier a Complaint No. 98 of 2020, titled as Patiala Lace House Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. was partly allowed by this Commission on 23.11.2021. 
In First Appeal No.12 of 2022 titled as New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Patiala Lace House, decided on 31.08.2022, the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had set aside the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by this District Commission in CC No. 98 of 2020 observing that the District Commission should not have entertained the complaint, and the same could have been dismissed by relegating the complainant to approach appropriate Court having jurisdiction to decide the same.
The observations made by the Hon'ble State Commission under Paragraph No. 13 of the ibid First Appeal No.12 of 2022 are reproduced as below:
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the limited jurisdiction conferred by the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the considered view that the learned District Commission should not have entertained the complaint, and the same could have been dismissed by relegating the complainant to approach appropriate Court having jurisdiction to decide the same.
The facts asserted and objections raised in the present complaint are more or less the same as they were in Complaint No. 98 of 2020.
For the sake of brevity, the facts of the aforesaid Complaint No. 98 of 2020 are not being reproduced here, but they be considered a part of the present complaint and be read in the present complaint. 
Resultantly, in view of the orders dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in First Appeal No. 12 of 2022, the present complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is advised to proceed before the Hon'ble Courts having appropriate jurisdiction.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory limits, due to Covid restrictions, unavailability of quorum and pendency of other cases.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. 
 
 
[ R.L.MITTAL]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sharda Attri]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Suraj Goyal]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.