AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 191 wordsThe National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has refused to entertain a petition filed by the appellant-Corporation on the limited ground that more appropriate remedy is before the Civil Court since an elaborate investigation into facts is necessary for a proper adjudication. We are unable to uphold the view taken by the National Commission in the present case.
The substantial defence taken by the insurer appears to be based on the terms of the insurance policy and the period of its validity. It is difficult for us to appreciate why the controversy in the present case was considered to be so complicated that the National Commission did not consider it appropriate to entertain the matter and adjudicate it on merits. There is no plea taken of want of jurisdiction in the National Commission. This being so, the impugned order of the National Commission has to be set aside.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission dated 15-2-1996 passed in Original Petition No. 95 of 1994 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the National Commission for decision of the petition in accordance with law.