Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

National Insurance Company ... vs The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd ... on 3 December, 2009

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE A
  
 







 



 

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION:  HYDERABAD 

 

  

 

 F.A.No.716/2006
against C.D.No.31/2004, Dist. Forum-I,  Hyderabad.  

 

  

 

Between: 

 

  

 

National Insurance Company
Ltd.,  

 

Divisional Office, II Floor,  

 

2-68/6, Ferozguda,  

 

Secunderabad  500 007, 

 

Rep. by its Branch
Manager.  Appellant/ 

 

  Opp.party 

 

 And 

 

The Singareni Colleries
Company Ltd.,  

 

(Government Company) 

 

having its Regd. Office  

 

at Kothagudem, Khammam
Dist.  

 

and its Admn. Office at
Meher Manzil,  

 

Singareni Bhavan, Red
Hills,  

 

Nampally,   Hyderabad, rep. by  

 

General Manager,
Bellampally.  Respondent/ 

 

  Complainant
 

 

  

 

Counsel for the
Appellant : M/s. M.Jeevan
Reddy 

 

  

 

Counsel for the
Respondent : M/s. J.Prabhakar  

 

  

 

CORAM : SMT
M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, 

 

AND 

 

SRI K.SATYANAND, HONBLE MEMBER 
 

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE.

 

Oral Order :(Per Smt. M.Shreesha , Honble Member) ***   Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.31/2004 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The main case of the complainant is that the opposite party issued policy for various vehicles belonging to the complainant, the validity of the policy being 17.11.1995 to 16.11.1996 and there was a fire accident and the complainant made the claim for Rs.19,88,659/-. It is the case of the opposite party that the Government of India has set up Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA) in Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) under Ministry of Industries, Govt. of India to settle and adjudicate the disputes and the complainant ought to have approached and availed this institution for adjudication before approaching this Forum.

 

Thereafter the opposite party filed I.A.No508/2005 seeking direction to take up the preliminary issue whether the C.D. is maintainable or not. They challenged the maintainability of the C.D. on the ground that the alleged dispute is between the two public sector undertakings and the complainant did not refer the matter to the Committee constituted by the Govt. of India of Ministry of Industries and obtained clearance prior to approaching this Commission and hence the C.D. is not maintainable as the necessary permission has not been taken prior to filing of the C.D.   District Forum passed an order that the petition was filed after the case was posted for arguments only to drag the proceedings and that this dispute need not be referred to any such Committee.

 

Aggrieved by this order the opposite party preferred R.P.3166/2005 before the National Commission. The National Commission vide its order dt.10.1.2006 issued notice returnable on 20.4.2006 and in the meantime stay of the proceedings before the District Forum. We observe from the record that C.D.No.31/2004 has been disposed of by District Forum-I, Hyderabad on 19.4.2006 which is subsequent to the say order given by the National Commission.

 

The principal ground on which the appellant assailed the order of the District Forum is that the District Forum disposed of the matter while the matter was under stay that remained in operation beyond the date of the order. This according to the appellant vitiates the impugned order itself . There can be no gain saying the fact that the District Forum cannot proceed with the matter and dispose of the C.D. while the stay was under operation. Here, in this case, the fact remains that there is no material on record to show that the District Forum had deliberately done or resorted to such recourse of disposing of the C.D. in the face of any stay order. However it is abundantly clear from the record that the order under appeal was passed while the stay was still in operation. Such an order turns out to be a nullity though the District Forum cannot be faulted on the ground that it had done deliberately. In view of this infirmity in the proceedings, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. It does not mean that it would preclude any proper adjudication of the matter on the merits. For these reasons even while setting aside the order of the District Forum the matter must be remanded to the District Forum to decide the case afresh on merits after giving opportunity to both sides .

Accordingly appeal is allowed remanding the matter to the District Forum to make denovo enquiry on merits after giving due opportunity to both sides. It shall dispose of the mater within three months after receipt of this order . There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Both sides shall appear before the District Forum on 22.12.2009 without insisting upon any further notice in the matter and cooperating the District Forum to dispose of the matter with utmost discharge as indicated .

 

Sd./MEMBER   Sd./MEMBER DT. 3.12.2009