ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs DEVKI NANDAN OJHA

This revision is directed against the order dated 28.07.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur ( in short, the State Commission) whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal No. 1053/12 preferred by the petitioner insurance company.

Sh. Avinash Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for it is a non-speaking order wherein the pleas taken by the appellant in the appeal have not been addressed to. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing of appeal on merits.

Petitioner who was present in person has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that it has been passed after taking into account overall facts and evidence as also the reasoned order passed by the District Forum. Thus, he has urged for dismissal of revision petition.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In order to properly appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads thus: "Trial District Forum after considering all the facts and evidences placed on record has passed the order. Therefore, we do not find any justification in considering all the facts and evidences of the dispute again. On considering facts and circumstances, no infirmity is found in the order dated 25.06.2012 passed in Complaint No.698 / 2009 by the Ld. District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. Since the District Forum has granted the proper relief to the complainant with its wisdom on the facts placed on record, wherein there is no reason to interfere. Even otherwise, Consumer Protection Act has been made to decide the consumer disputes speedily and in simple manner. Consumer expects speedily disposal of its complaint. Therefore, in the Act 1986, the normal judicial proceedings have been kept away. District Forum and Commission has to dispose off the complaint and appeal speedily in accordance with the principle of natural justice. If the commission does not find any infirmity in the finding of the District forum given on the basis of evidence and the documents placed on record and relief granted with its wisdom then in accordance with the principle of the Act, 1986 there is no necessity of considering again all the facts and evidences. As per the basic principle of Section 3 of the Act, 1986, provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force.

Hence, upon considering the above facts, the order dated 25.6.2012 of the District forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. If the appellant in the aforesaid appeal has deposited any amount before the District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur then liberty is given to take refund of the said amount. The appellant has been given one month time from today, to comply the order passed by the District Forum."

On reading of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner has neither referred to the facts of the case nor it has referred to the grounds of challenge to the order of the District Forum nor it has given any reason for rejection of those grounds and dismissal of the appeal. Thus, the impugned order is non-speaking order as such not sustainable. Similar issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter HVPNL vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of the similar order passed by the State Commission set aside the order of the State Commission, Haryana with the following observations: "5. The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21-7-2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21-7-2000 after giving notice to the parties.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."

The impugned order suffers from infirmity being non speaking order in view of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Thus, the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to hear the parties on merits after due notice to the parties and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order referring to the facts of the case as also the arguments of the respective parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 05.05.2015. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the appeal within three months from the appearance of the parties before there.