National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Arbind Kumar vs Branch Manager, National Insurance ... on 15 November, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 01/02/2016 in Appeal No. 04/2015 of the State Commission Bihar) 1. ARBIND KUMAR S/O LATE SHANKER AGENCY, R/O NEAR GUMTI NO. 32, MALGODOWAN ROAD, DALSINGSARAI POST+ P.S. DALSINGSARI DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR BIHAR ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & 4 ORS. MOHANPUR ROAD, NEAR CHANDNA PETROL PUMP P.O.+P.S.+ DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR BIHAR 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. FRAZER ROAD, PATNA BIHAR 3. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA DALSINGSARAI, P.O.+P.S. DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR BIHAR 4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KRISHNA MARKET IN FRONT OF KOTWALI MOTIJHEEL MUZAFFARPUR-842001 BIHAR 5. C.M.D. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MIDDLE STREET POST BOX NO. 9229, KOLKATTA-730071 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Moti Chandra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : For Respondents- 1, 2, 4 & 5 : Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : NEMO Dated : 15 Nov 2017 ORDER DR. B. C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01-02-2016, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred as the State Commission) in Revision No. 04 of 2015 by which, the State Commission dismissed the appeal against the order dated 20-05-2013, passed by the District Forum, Samastipur in Misc. Case (Restoration) No.29 of 2011, by which the District Forum had dismissed the restoration petition.
2. The facts of the case are that the Consumer Complaint No.73 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum, Samastipur, saying that he was running a cycle parts agency with the name Shankar Agency and that he had got his shop-cum-godown insured with the opposite party (OP), National Insurance Company Ltd., for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. There was theft at the insured premises on the night of 16-01-1998, causing a loss of Rs.50,240/- to him. The consumer complaint was filed, seeking directions to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,64,243/- to him including the cost of goods stolen and damage to his business, etc.. The said complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 25-05-2011 of the District Forum, in which it is recorded that the complainant had been absenting from the proceedings regularly, whereas the learned counsel for the OP insurance company was present. The complaint was dismissed for lack of 'pairvi' on the part of the complainant.
3. The complainant filed miscellaneous application No.29 of 2011, seeking restoration of his consumer complaint before the District Forum. However, the said restoration application was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 20-05-2013. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of Appeal No.04 of 2015 before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, the State Commission found that the restoration case had been rightly dismissed by the District Forum, as it was not maintainable before them in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr., 2011 (9) SCC 541. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.
4. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the OP had taken a large number of adjournments in the matter, causing delay in the disposal of the consumer complaint. However, the District Forum dismissed his complaint on the ground of non-appearance of the complainant, as he could not appear only for one single day due to the sudden death of his father. He should be given a chance to present his case before the District Forum on merits.
5. The learned counsel for the insurance company, however, stated that the case had been rightly dismissed in default by the District Forum. The application for restoration had also righty dismissed, keeping in view the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The order passed by the State Commission and the District Forum were in accordance with law and should be maintained.
6. A perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case reveals that the complaint was dismissed in default by the District Forum on 25-05-2011. A number of other complaints filed by the same complainant have also been dismissed on various counts. Review Petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 20-05-2013. An appeal against the order dated 20-05-2013 was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 01-02-2016 on the ground that the District Forum had no powers to review their own order. It is felt, however, in the interest of justice, that the complainant be given another chance to plead his case before the District Forum on merits. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the consumer complaint is ordered to be restored. The District Forum is directed to hear the said consumer complaint on merits and pass their judgment after given an opportunity to both the parties to plead their case.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER