State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Gulabiya Bai vs Divisional Manager, The Oriental ... on 5 May, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/201
Instituted on : 23.04.2012
Smt. Gulabiya Bai, Widow of Late Bhagirathi,
R/o : Ramnagar,
Tehsil : Kotma, District : Anuppur (M.P.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office : Opposite Rajiv Plaza,
Shri Ram Trade Centre, Near Bus Stand,
Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Chief General Manager,
South Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Tehsil : Manendragarh, District : Koria (C.G.)
3. Sub Area Manager,
Kapil Dhara Colliery S.E.C.L.
Hasdev Area, District : Anuppur (M.P.)
4. Smt. Kaushalya, W/o Karan Sai Panika,
R/o : Nai Ledri Harra Dafai,
Tehsil : Manendragarh, District : Koria (C.G.) ..... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Jitendra Mudliyar, for appellant.
ORAL ORDER Dated : 05/05/2012 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against, order dated 24.03.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korea, Baikunthpur // 2 // (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), passed in Complaint Case No.06/2009, whereby the complaint of complainant/appellant , has been dismissed.
2. Earlier Complaint Case No.66/2005 was preferred by the complainant against the Insurance Company, for seeking compensation on the ground that she is the legal heir of the deceased insured. As another lady was also claiming that she was legally wedded wife of the deceased insured, therefore, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed by the District Forum, vide order Dated 30.04.2007. Appeals against that order were preferred before this Commission by both the ladies, which were registered as Appeal No.273/2007 & 274/2007 and were decided by this Commission observing as follows:-
"It is clear that may be Gulabiya Bai or Kaushalya Bai or both of them are entitled to the Compensation. However it is not possible to award any amount in the absence of clear averments and Substantiation of their Respective rights. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing complaint does not call for any interference. However, liberty deserves to be granted to the both the appellants i.e. Gulabiya Bai and Kaushalya to avail of such legal remedy, as may be available to them regarding the Janta policy issued by the insurer & respondent No.1 the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd."
3. From this observation of this Commission, it is clear that the complaint preferred by the complainant before District Forum, was dismissed by the District Forum and that order of dismissal of the // 3 // complaint, was not interfered with by this Commission in earlier appeal and that order has become absolute against both the appellants. However, liberty was granted to avail such legal remedy, as may be available regarding Janta policy issued by the insured and respondent No.1. Now appellant has obtained a Declaratory Decree in her favour from a Competent Court and it has been declared that complainant/appellant is legally wedded wife of the deceased insured. In view of this new development, the appellant may file a fresh claim before the Insurance Company, on the basis of such Declaratory Decree and Insurance Company may consider such claim. If such claim is repudiated by the Insurance Company and new cause of action becomes available to the appellant against the Insurance Company, then of course, a fresh complaint may be filed by the complainant, on the basis of such cause of action, but so far as the present complaint, is concerned, it was filed on the basis of earlier cause of action and complaint filed on the basis of earlier cause of action, had already been dismissed by the District Forum and that order of dismissal was confirmed by this Commission, so order of the District Forum of dismissal of second complaint, is appropriate, legal and calls for no interference.
// 4 //
4. The appeal has got no substance and is dismissed in limine without notice to the OPs/respondent with the observations as made hereinabove.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/05/2012 /05/2012