National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 20 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 819 OF 2012 (From the order dated 29.11.2011 in First Appeal No. 1268/2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma R/o Chetan Nagar, Dholpur Road, Bari, District Dholpur, Rajasthan Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Reliance Center 19, Balchand Heerachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 2. General Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No. 60 Okhla Indl. Area Phase No. 3, New Delhi 3. General Manager (Claim Theft) Maker Towers, Second Floor, Nityanand Nagar,Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 4. Branch Manager, Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Data Arcade, First Floor, Station Road, Alwar. Respondents/Opp. Parties (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 20th January, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1268 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioners Jeep No. RJ 11 4A 0483 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year from 21.1.2009 to 22.10.2010. Jeep was stolen. FIR was lodged on the same day and immediately informed to the OP/respondent. OP repudiated claim on the ground of delay of 83 days in intimation to Insurance Company.
Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties partly allowed claim and directed OP to pay 60% of the claim amount i.e. Rs.2,83,695/- on non-standard basis and further allowed Rs.3,000/- as compensation. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by leaned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order; hence, the revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of impugned order clearly reveals that this order neither contains any fact, nor any ground of appeal or decision on the points raised in the memo of appeal. As the order of learned State Commission is not a speaking order and we do not find apparently any cogent reason for allowing claim on sub-standard basis, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the light of the following judgment.
6. Honble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under:
1.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 HVPN appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate 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 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.
7. In the light of aforesaid judgement, impugned order dated 29.11.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1268 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide the appeal afresh on merits by a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 25.2.2014. A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k