Future General India Insurance Co Ltd vs Gulli Devi

BOTH these revisions arise out of single accident involving common question of law; hence, decided by common order.

THESE revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 1.08.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 564/2014 and Appeal No. 565/2014 Future General India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gulli Devi by which, while dismissing appeals, orders of District Forum allowing complaints was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant / Respondent ''s husband Soujiram owner of vehicle no. RJ -14 -TA -6499 got it insured from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 2.7.2009 to 1.7.2010 for ?4,75,950/ - along with Owner -Driver Personal Accident coverage upto ?2,00,000/ -. On 6.2.2010, husband of the complainant while driving aforesaid vehicle met with an accident with goods train and died on the spot. Complainant lodged claims before OP which were repudiated by OP on the ground that deceased Soujiram had no driving licence at the time of accident. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed separate complaints before District forum pertaining to loss of vehicle as well personal accident coverage. OP resisted complaints and submitted that as deceased was not having any driving licence and was driving vehicle without any licence, claim was not paid. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed both complaints and directed OP to pay ?4,28,809/ - in Complaint No.1841/2012 and ?2,00,000/ - in Complaint No. 1842/2012. Appeals filed by OP were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders are not speaking orders and have not considered grounds taken in memo of appeal; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned orders be set aside and matters may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as learned District forum had already discussed all aspects, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

HON ''ble Apex Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir, 2001 10 SCC 659 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''.

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".

IN the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the parties.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed and orders dated 1.08.2014 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 564/2014 and Appeal No. 565/2014 Future General India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gulli Devi are set aside and matters are remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding them by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 28.5.2015.