National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mahavir Singh vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd. on 28 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3443 of 2012 (From the order dated 25.05.2012 in Appeal No.275 of 2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Mahavir Singh S/o Ram Bhagat Singh R/o Village Mandothi Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar, Haryana Petitioner/Complainant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh Through its Deputy Manager Respondent/Opp. Party (OP)
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Advocate For the Respondent :
Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 28th May, 2013 O R D E R PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 275 of 2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Singh by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner got his truck No. HR 63A 1524 insured with OP/respondent for a period commencing from 12.4.2006 to 11.4.2007. Vehicle was stolen on 12-13/5/2006 and FIR was lodged on 2.6.2006 and intimation was also given to OP. Complainant submitted all the documents to OP for processing claim, but claim was not disbursed. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint before District Forum. OP filed written statement and submitted that complainant intimated OP very late, which was in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and further alleged that complainant did not comply with the directions given in many letters; so claim of the complainant was closed as no claim and intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 29.8.2007; hence, there was no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.11,40,000/- to the complainant along with 9% p.a. interest and Rs.2500/- as litigation cost.
Appeal filed by OP/respondent was allowed by learned State Commission by impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay in filing complaint had already been condoned by learned District Forum, even then, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint on the ground of barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of record reveals that complainant filed application for condonation of delay along with complaint before the District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 3.12.2009 i.e date of filing complaint, allowed the application for condonation of delay and notice was issued to OP. Thus, it becomes clear that delay in filing complaint was condoned by learned District Forum, though, without hearing OP, which should not have been done. Perusal of reply filed by OP further reveals that claim was not repudiated by letter dated 29.8.2007, but file was closed as complainant did not comply with the directions given in the letters. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that claim has not been repudiated till today.
6. As learned State Commission has allowed appeal and dismissed complaint on the ground of complaint barred by limitation, but delay in filing complaint had already been condoned by District Forum, which was not brought to the notice of the State Commission, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission to decide it afresh on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 25.5.2012 in Appeal No. 275 of 2011- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Singh is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Ld. State Commission to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties, in the light of the observations made above.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 5th July, 2013. There shall be no order as to cost.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k