National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Roshan Lal Saroha vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 December, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 600 OF 2012 (From the Order dated 30.11.2011 in C.M. No.754/2011 in FA No.1237/2010 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Roshan Lal Saroha Petitioner S/o Shri Daiya Ram R/o V. Kiwana, Tehsil Samalkha District Panipat Versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondents Through its Sub Divisional Manager LIC Building, Near Bus Stand, G.T. Road Panipat 2. The Regional Officer The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jiwan Jyoti Building Ambala Cantt. Through its Regional Manager BEFORE: HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Advocate Pronounced on : 13th December, 2012 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short). The impugned order reads as under:-
None has come present on behalf of applicant. The civil miscellaneous application is for recalling/review of the order dated 14.9.2010. Besides the fact that it is barred by time of 322 days. Even otherwise no review is permissible under the statute. Case called several times since morning but none has put in appearance on behalf of applicant. No request or intimation has been received. Therefore, this application is dismissed in default.
2. We have heard Mr. Ankit Sibbal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record placed before us.
3. It would be seen from the impugned order that the State Commission has dismissed the M.A. No.754 of 2011 in which the petitioner had requested the State Commission to recall/review its earlier order dated 14.9.2010 passed in F.A. No.1237 of 2010 filed by the petitioner before the State Commission. Since the Fora below do not have the power to review their orders under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, no fault could be found with the impugned order and the same has to be confirmed and the revision petition is liable for dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of law which authorises the State Commission to review/recall its own order passed under the C.P. Act, 1986.
4. It may be relevant to mention here that the order dated 14.9.2010 passed in appeal No.1237 of 2010, against which the review application in question had been filed by the petitioner and dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order, has not been challenged in the present revision petition. Besides this, it is also seen from the revision petition and the list of dates filed by the petitioner that F.A. No.1237 of 2010 had been filed by the petitioner before the State Commission against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the District Forum by which the complaint filed by the petitioner had been dismissed. A copy of this order of the District Forum, Panipat is placed on record. It is interesting and relevant to take note of the observations of the District Forum made in para 3 of its order while recording the reasons for dismissing the complaint. The same are reproduced below:-
OPs moved an application stating therein that the present complaint is not maintainable because the earlier complaint no. 355 of 2009 filed by the complainant was on the same cause of action and the said complaint was dismissed by this Forum, vide order dated 29.07.2010. It is stated that against the said order dated 29.07.2010, the complainant filed an appeal before the Honble State Commission on 22.08.2010, which was withdrawn on 14.09.2010. In support of this application, OPs filed copies of order dated 29.07.2010 passed by this Forum and order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the Honble State Commission. After perusal of the above said orders, it is very much clear that the earlier complaint of the complainant was dismissed by this Forum being time barred. Now fresh complaint on the same cause of action between the same parties involving the same issue is not maintainable. Counsel for the complainant referred to the citation AIR 2000 Supreme Court, page 941 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. R. Srinivasan in which it is held that First complaint dismissed for default of complainant - Second complaint on same facts and cause of action
- Not barred. The above citation is not relevant to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the complaint of the complainant was finally decided and it was dismissed being time barred. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the application filed by OPs is hereby allowed and consequently, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. It appears from perusal of these orders that the petitioner has been pursuing his complaint again and again in spite of its dismissal by the District Forum earlier and indulging in baseless litigation. In view of this also, the revision petition of the petitioner would appear to be meritless. In these circumstances, we dismiss the revision petition at the threshold with cost. The cost is quantified at Rs.2,500/- which the petitioner is directed to deposit with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of NCDRC within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
6. List for compliance on 15.02.2013 in the category of directions.
Sd/-.
(SURESH CHANDRA) PRESIDING MEMBER SS/