State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Jagjit Singh on 29 May, 2013
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.33/2013
Date of Decision: 29.05.2013
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
19, Reliance Centre, Valchard Hira Chand Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai,
Through its Manager (Legal),
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
SCO 145-146, 2nd Floor, Sector- 9C,
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
..........
Appellant
Versus
Jagjit Singh, son of Shri Bansi Ram Singh,
Resident of Village Jaral, Post Office Chakmoh,
Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.
..........
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant:
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: None
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur, whereby in a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Jagjit Singh, it has been ordered that property of the appellant be attached and if even after attachment of property, order Annexure C-4, is not complied with attached property, be sold and sale proceeds paid to the respondent to the extent of his insurance claim and punitive compensation of `25,000/- and litigation expenses of `5,000/- have also been ordered to be paid.
2. Respondent Jagjit Singh owned a vehicle (Tata Sumo Specio), which was insured with the appellant in the year, 2007. On 19.05.2007, when the policy was in force, vehicle met with an accident. Respondent, allegedly informed the appellant about the accident and damage caused to the vehicle, but the claim was not settled.
3. A complaint was filed by the respondent in the year, 2008, which was registered at Serial No.22 of that year. That complaint was disposed of on 12.10.2009, vide order, copy Annexure C-4, with a direction to the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent, if he submitted claim form with documents. Direction was to take final decision on the claim, within 90 days on submission of claim form alongwith other documents.
4. It appears that appellant did not take any decision, though the respondent submitted claim form and documents, in terms of the aforesaid order, copy Annexure C-4. Complainant, therefore, filed a fresh complaint. Prayer was made in the complaint for revival of earlier complaint and for passing appropriate orders.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, rejected the prayer for revival of complaint and passed the impugned order.
6. Respondent has not put in appearance, despite service.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
8. No order for payment of any amount of money had been passed by the learned District Forum in the earlier complaint, which was disposed of, vide order, copy Annexure C-4. The order was for the adjudication of claim of the respondent within 90 days. The order also gave an option to the respondent to file a fresh complaint, in case he was aggrieved by the decision taken by the appellant.
9. When the appellant did not decide the claim of the respondent, despite his having submitted claim form alongwith documents, within stipulated period, respondent filed a fresh complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction that original complaint be revived and decided on merits.
10. There was no order for payment of insurance money by the appellant to the respondent. As a matter of fact, claim of the respondent was for indemnification for the damage caused to his insured vehicle. No specific amount of money payable by the appellant to the respondent found mention in the earlier order, copy Annexure C-4. Learned District Forum passed the impugned order in purported exercise of its power, under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such an order can be passed by virtue of sub Section (3) of Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, only when there is an order for payment of specific amount of money and not otherwise.
11. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and complaint remanded to the learned District Forum, with a direction to decide the same alongwith first Consumer Complaint No.22/2008, on merits, and pass appropriate orders, as per requirement of law.
12. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 29, 2013 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?