State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co Through Its ... vs Akshaykumar Kalusaji Dabade on 11 April, 2011
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal
No. A/10/336
(Arisen out
of Order Dated null in Case No. cc/2009/279 of District )
1. National Insurance Co Through its Regional
Manager.
Firdos Chambers Wardha Road Ramdaspeth
Nagpur
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Akshaykumar Kalusaji Dabade
R/o 35 Gajanan Nagar Ring Road Near SAai nagar water
tank compund
Nagpur
2. The Chief Manager UCO Bank Sitabuldi Branch
Mahajan Market Sitabuldi
Ngapur
3. The Asstt Regional Manager
Near Jaika Motors Civil Lines
Nagpur
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE P.N.KASHALKAR PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER PRESENT:
Adv.Godbole ......for the Appellant Adv.solat for Resp.No.1 Adv.Wadodkar for Respondent No.2 & 3 ......for the Respondent ORDER In filing this appeal there is a delay of 115 days. The delay is caused due to the fact that, initially, the appellant thought that there is no need to file any appeal because they had already complies with the order. However, they were required to file appeal since appellant got knowledge that on the basis of judgment and award passed by the District Forum, the Respondent No.1 had filed execution proceeding Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and some coercive steps were being taken by the District Forum for non compliance of the order. Under these circumstances, the appeal came to be filed belatedly.
There appears to be just and reasonable cause in filing this appeal belatedly. Since the appellant had already complied the impugned order by sending repudiation letter which it had not sent during pendency of the complaint. The order was for deciding the claim. In such circumstances the delay is properly explained and subject to certain cost it can be allowed. Hence the M.A. No.242/10 is allowed subject to cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the Respondent No.1.
We heard all the parties on merit at the stage of admission itself. We are finding that judgment and award passed by the District Forum, Nagpur simply refers to the fact that within 60 days from the receipt of the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company is required to dispose of claim lodged by the complainant either by allowing the same or by sending repudiation letter. Accordingly, repudiation letter has been issued by the Insurance Company on 24/11/09 and again by letter dated 14/12/09 the repudiation was communicated to the complainant. When this is so, in our view, the award passed by the Forum as above, is fully complied with and there is no necessity to initiate execution proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 by the District Forum.
We have been told that the District Forum has taken cognizance of the execution proceeding filed U/s 27 bearing No.EA 19/10. However, taking such cognizance is per se erroneous and bad in law. Such proceeding U/s 27 is required to be quashed and set-aside in view of the fact that the order of the District Forum passed in CC No.279/2000 has been fully complied with by the Insurance Company by sending repudiation letter to the Respondent No.1 herein. In the circumstances, we make it clear that execution proceeding bearing No.EA 19/10 is liable to be rejected, however, Mr.Solat makes a statement before this Commission that he will withdraw the said proceeding and would file fresh complaint since he has limitation of two years from the date of repudiation of the claim. If such complaint is filed, the District Forum shall, after hearing all the parties concerned, decide the complaint afresh on its own merits.
With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
The amount deposited by the appellant of Rs.25,000/- be refunded back to the Insurance Company forthwith.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Delivered on 11/04/2011.
[ HON'BLE P.N.KASHALKAR] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER