National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The New India Assurance Co. Limited vs Sugiya Devi & Anr. on 25 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 17/01/2014 in Appeal No. 648/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED HOWRAH BRACH UNIT NO-512200 AT MADHUSUDHAN APARTMENTS, P/18 DOBSONS LANE (2ND FLOOR) HOWRAH - 711101 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUGIYA DEVI & ANR. W/O LATE GAUTAM KEYAT, BAHULA COLONY,JAMBAD P.O BAHULA P.S ANDAL DISTRICT : BURDWAN W.B 2. GOLDEN TRUST FINACIAL SERVICES LTD. 16 R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001 W.B ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. KISHORE RAWAT For the Respondent : NEMO for R-1
Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Advocate for R-2
Dated : 25 Jan 2016 ORDER
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Counsel appearing for the Golden Trust Financial Services Limited, second Respondent.
I observe from the record that the proof of service of dasti notice on the Complainant is filed. However, none appears for the first Respondent/Complainant.
This Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 17.01.2014, of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in FA no.648 of 2012 under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, dated 17.01.2014, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and concurred with the order of the District Forum. The District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay the sum assured of Rs.3 Lac with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. I observe that similar Revision Petitions have been disposed of by this Commission in Revision Petition No.3095 of 2010, vide order, dated 27.11.2015 in which this Commission had held as follows:
-3-"........ Therefore, under the circumstances, we hold that liability to pay the amounts in terms of the order passed by the Fora below, to the Complainants before us will be joint and several on the Insurance Company and GTFS. It will be open to the Complainants to enforce the orders in their favour against both or any of them.
35. In view of the aforegoing discussion, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, holding the Insurance Company deficient in not processing the claims of the Complainants, warranting interference in our limited revisional jurisdiction. (See : Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269). Resultantly, save and except to the extent of our finding on composite negligence, all the Revision petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. The Complainants, represented before us, shall be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹20,000/- in each of the cases, which shall be paid to them by the Insurance Company and GTFS in equal proportion, within two weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order."
Since this Revision Petition also pertains to the similar facts, this Revision Petition fails and is also disposed of accordingly, i.e., liability to pay the decretal amount in terms of the order passed by the Fora below will be jointly and severely on the Insurance company and the GTFS. It will be open to the Complainant to enforce the orders in her favour against both or any of them. The Complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs.20,000/- which shall be borne by both the Petitioner herein and also the second Respondent GTFS in equal proportion within two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
...................... M. SHREESHA PRESIDING MEMBER