National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jugraj Singh Since Deceased By Lrs on 5 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3743 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 29.03.2012 in First Appeal No.1348 of 2008 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, SCO 36- 37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, Through its authorized and Constituted attorney, Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office No.1, Level-V, Tower-II, 124, Jeewan Bharati Building, Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 .Petitioner Versus Jugraj Singh since Deceased by LRS 1. Sukhjit Kaur widow of Jugraj Singh S/o Gurdev Singh 2. Harpreet Singh S/o Jugraj Singh, S/o Gurdev Singh, 3. Harcharan Singh S/o Jugraj Singh S/o Gurdev Singh All Residents of Village Korewala, Tehsil and District Moga .........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Raina, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 05.02.2013. ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed this revision petition against the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.1348 of 2008. The revision petition has been filed with delay of 90 days. The application filed in explanation of this delay shows that the impugned order of the State Government, which dismissed the appeal of the RP/OP New India Assurance Co, was made on 29.03.2012. The application seeking its condonation states:-
8. That accordingly a review petition was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission which was numbered as the Revision petition No.58/2012.
9. That the State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the revision petition vide its order dated 17.09.2012, holding therein that the State Commission has no power to Review its orders.
10. That petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 29.3.2012, passed by the State Commission in the First appeal No.1348 of 2008, and also against the order dated 17.09.2012, passed in the review petition No.58/2012, and challenged by way of the Revision Petition before this Commission.
2. The only explanation, for seeking the remedy of review before the State Commission, offered by the petitioner is that it was a bona fide prayer and not a wilful or deliberate one. The law on the subject is well established. Under the scheme of the Act, the power to review its own orders is specifically given to the National Commission under Section 22. Similarly, the power to set aside its own orders, made ex parte is given under Section 22-A. But, the Act does not make any corresponding provision in relation to the State Commission or the District Forum. Therefore, it becomes a case of seeking a remedy which did not lie. It would not make a difference whether the remedy was sough bona fide or otherwise.
3. In a similar case, on the question of power to recall an ex parte order, the matter came up for detail consideration of Honble Supreme Court of India in Rajeev Hiterndra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr, IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC). It was held
36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.
37. The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders. Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers. We have carefully ascertained the legislative intension and interpreted the law accordingly.
Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
4. On merits, the complaint related to non-settlement of an insurance claim of a vehicle which was allegedly stolen. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with the following direction:-
The OPs- Insurance Company is directed to issue the cheque of the claimed amount i.e. Rs.474000/- in favour of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date, they issued the cheque in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd till its payment and they shall also pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. Appeal against the above order, was dismissed by the State Commission in the impugned order. It confirmed the award of the District Forum and also awarded special cost of Rs.50,000, in favour of the Complainant. While doing so, the State Commission also ordered That the entire amount of compensation be recovered from the official/officials of the appellant Company, who had deliberately paid Rs.4,74,000/- to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. with malafide intention and just to harass the respondent.
6. A perusal of the revision petition shows that it is this direction which is the main ground of challenge to the impugned order. It is alleged that:-
The State Commission without giving an opportunity to the officials of the petitioner insurance company ought not to have made such observations in its order.
The observations made by the State Commission are contrary to the principles of natural Justice and such observations in the order passed against the officials of the petitioner insurance Company are unjustified, illegal and uncalled for as such same may be expunged and set aside under the orders of this Honble Commission.
7. We find this to be a very strange contention, unsupported by the material on record. The order of the State Commission clearly shows that the case of the appellant (revision petitioner in the present proceedings) was argued by Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate. The impugned order was passed after the State Commission had perused the records of the District Forum and heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the two parties. It is thus clear that the revision petitioner had full opportunity to advance its case before the State Commission. Therefore, the contention that the insurance officials were not given an opportunity cannot be accepted.
8. The revision petition also raises a fresh ground in justification of payment of the claim to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. instead of the Complainant. It is contended that the claim of the Complainant/respondent was based on fraud. This clearly goes against the pleadings of the petitioner before the District Forum.
The ground of fraud was not pleaded before the District Forum, as seen from the written response filed on behalf of the New Assurance Co. Ltd. We therefore cannot allow the petitioner to raise a fresh plea at the stage of revision.
9. In the final analysis, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as merit. No orders as to costs.
.Sd/-
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-