National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Sabitri Devi & Anr. on 15 June, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3565 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 25/11/2016 in Appeal No. 212/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DELHI LEGAL HUB, 12/1, 2ND FLOOR, JEEWAN RAKSHA BUILDING NEW DELHI-110002 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SABITRI DEVI & ANR. W/O. LATE TRILOKI SINGH, CHHATAPATHAR GATE P.O. KALIPAHARI, P.S. ASANSOL(S) DISTRICT-BURDWAN-713339 WEST BENGAL 2. BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. GOLDEN TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICE, 16, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Soumy Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Advocate
Dated : 15 Jun 2020 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-1, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 25.11.2016 passed in First Appeal No. A/212/2015 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (For short, State Commission') wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum has been upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that son of respondent no.1/complainant, Dipak Singh (since deceased) had taken an insurance policy styled, "Group Janta Personal Accident Policy" for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000. On 15.01.2013, complainant's son died in an accident. The insurance claim was filed by the complainant /respondent no.1 which was not settled by the OPs. Hence, the case was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 09.01.2015 has allowed the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. A/212/2015 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2016.
4. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 both were present and also heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent no.2 had wrongly insured son of respondent no.1/complainant therefore, claim was not liable to be paid. Learned counsel for petitioner further stated that respondent no. 2 is also negligent and should be jointly and severally liable towards the payment of the claim. Both the fora below have passed erroneous orders without looking at the objections filled by the petitioner insurance company.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 stated that in a similar matter, New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7732/2016 decided on 25.11.2016, Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order that 100% amount should be deposited by the insurance company and the same may be released to the complainant and the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 may be settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the complainant is not concerned as to who pays the claim, the petitioner or the respondent No.2.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 agreed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that this case needs to be decided on the basis of the order dated 25.11.2016 in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered the total insurance amount to be deposited by the Insurance Company before the District Forum and the same would be released to the complainant by the District Forum without asking for any security. Therefore nothing remains pending in this revision petition as the same may be disposed of by ordering the insurance company to deposit the insurance amount before the District Forum and the same should be released in favour of the complainant/respondent no.1 by the District Forum.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that this bench in RP No.2608 of 2016 decided on 10.2.2018, though dismissed the revision petition but left open the dispute between the insurance company and GTFS subject to order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 7732, 7889-7955 of 2016. He stated that in RP No.1752 of 2016 and RP No. 122 of 2016 decided on 13.4.2017, this Commission only dismissed the revision petitions without observing anything on the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The learned counsel argued that this bench of the Commission has to pass order similar to that passed by the coordinate bench and to support his contentions, he referred to the following cases:
1. A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 9988) 2 SC C 602 at Paragraph 183
2. Venkateswara Rice Mill Vs. State of A.P. (1971) 2 SCC 650 at paragraph 9
3. State of Punjab Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26 at paragraph 339
9. It was contended that if the revision petition is decided on the condition that the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 should be governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another, SLP No.7732 of 2016, then it will deprive the respondent no.2 from availing any remedy against this order.
10. I have carefully perused the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Initially, in a similar matter in SLP No.7732 of 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.4.2016 had ordered that the insurance company shall deposit 50% of the amount before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same shall be released to the complainant without any security. Later on, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2016, modified its earlier order dated 29.4.2016, by ordering that the complainant need not appear in the matter as the dispute now remains basically between the insurance company and respondent no.2 and insurance company shall deposit the remaining 50% insured amount also with the District Forum and the District Forum shall release this amount to the complainant without any security. This means that Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed payment of 100% amount of insurance to the complainant without any security and his presence also has been dispensed with treating the pending matter as a dispute between the insurance company and respondent no.2.
11. Once the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been passed in a similar case, no discretion remains with this Commission to take any other view in the matter. The District Forum has already ordered to settle the insurance claim for the insurance amount with the complainant and the order has been upheld by the State Commission. Accordingly, as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred similar matter, the insurance company is directed to deposit the total insurance amount with the District Forum within a period of four weeks and the District Forum is directed to release the same to the complainant/respondent no.1, after due verification of the deposited amount as well as of the complainant. It is further directed that no security will be required for releasing this amount.
12. It is true that it is not necessary to decide inter-se dispute between the defendants in a suit and claim of the plaintiff is to be decided. From this point of view there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for respondent no.2, but the present revision petition is being decided on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another (supra), and the revision petition is being dismissed as the complainant is entitled to claim as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another (supra). Ultimately, who will be liable to pay this claim, will be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another (supra).
13. There is no dispute that the decision of the coordinate bench is to be accepted. In fact the decision of the coordinate bench and this bench is same i.e. the revision petition has been dismissed. Any party can challenge the order of this Commission before the Hon'ble Supreme Court if aggrieved.
14. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition No.3565 of 2016 is dismissed in the light of the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another, SLP ( C) No.7732 of 2016.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER