National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nirmala Kothari on 6 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2303 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 20/02/2013 in Appeal No. 824/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT: 8TH FLOOR,KANCHANJUNGA BUILDING, 18 BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI = 110 001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NIRMALA KOTHARI W/O LATE SH VINOD RAI KOTHARI, R/O 8 SUNAYAN GALI ,MAHAVEER BAZAR, BEAWAR AJMER RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Surya Prakash Gandhi, Advocate
with Mr. Amit Gandhi, Advocate
Dated : 06 Feb 2015 ORDER
Heard.
2. Delay condoned.
3. It has been stated by ld. counsel for the petitioner that impugned order passed by the State Commission while deciding the petitioner's appeal, is -2- non-speaking one and State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, as on what basis it has dismissed the appeal.
4. Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') against the Petitioner alleging deficiency on its part..
5. Respondent contested the same by filing its written statement.
6. After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (for short 'District Forum') vide order dated 30.5.2012, partly allowed the complaint.
7. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed Appeal (No.824 of 2012) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan,(for short, 'State Commission') which vide its impugned order dated 20.2.2013, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
8. Hence, the present revision.
9. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is reproduced as under;
"The present appeal is filed against order dated 16.5.2012 passed by ld. District Consumer Forum, Ajmer.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel of appellant and perused the file.
The subordinate District Forum has passed the award after detailed analyses of the facts and evidence. Hence, -3- we do not find any expediency in analysis of the facts and evidences of the case again. Looking to the facts and evidences we do not find any infirmity in the orders dt 16.05.2012 and 30.05.2012 passed by learned District Forum, Ajmer in complaint No.262/2011 as the District Forum has given reasonable relief to the complainant on the basis of facts came on record and there is no any basis of interference. Hence, on merit there is no point in the appeal.
Otherwise, also the Consumer Protection Act has been made for immediate and easy disposal of the consumer complaint. The consumer expects immediate and easy disposal of his complaint. Hence the general legal proceedings has kept away in Act 1986. The District Forum and the commission has to dispose off the complaints immediately as per principles of natural justice. If the commission do not find any infirmity in the findings and relief given by the District Forum in their order, then as per motive of Act 1986 there is no need to again discuss and analyze all the facts and evidences. The main motive of Act 1986 as per section 3 is also that for time implementation the sub section of this act will be in addition to sections of any other law and not in deficiency.
Hence the orders dt. 16.05.2012 and 30.05.2012 passed by the District Forum Ajmer in complaint No.276/2008 is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merit. If the appellant has deposited any amount in District Forum Jaipur-I, he will be free to receive it back.-4-
The appellant is given time of one month for compliance of the order of District Forum."
10. After going through the order, I am shocked to observe that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. It has not mentioned even the facts of the case nor it has dealt with any of the submissions made by either of the parties. It appears that the State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeals. For the knowledge of the State Commission, I hereby quote the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to disposal of first appeal.
11. In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held ;
"4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows;
In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms :
'We have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the details and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal'.
We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter.
The appellant forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid -5- reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".
12. Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s)8811/2009,decided on 21.2.2011, Hon'ble Apex Court observed ;
"A bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19.
In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons".
13. Similarly, in the present case also the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. In view of the decisions (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal and has been passed without any application of judicial mind.
-6-14. Hence, I hereby set aside the impugned order and allow the present revision petition. Consequently, I remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with mandate of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of this order. 16. To appear before the State Commission on 16.3.2015.
17. Dasti.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER