AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this Revision Petition, the Complainant calls in question the correctness of the order dated 29.06.2013, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Pandri, Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. FA/12/450. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 01.08.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Raigarh (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 30 of 2009. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint preferred by the Complainant mainly against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), wherein it was alleged that the claim, preferred by him for the loss suffered on account of the accident of the insured vehicle on 07.12.2008, had been wrongly repudiated by the Insurance Company. Both the Forums below have come to the conclusion that since the Complaint involves complicated question of fact, it would be proper to grant an opportunity to the Complainant to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.
Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company as also the Dealer, Respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively in this Revision Petition. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Complainant and Respondent No.1, namely, the Finance Company.
Having heard learned Counsel and perused the documents, placed on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable.
It is evident from the pleadings that the short question for consideration before the lower Fora was whether or not the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim made by the Complainant for the loss suffered on account of the afore-noted accident. Although the letter indicating the grounds for repudiation of the Complainant''s claim was not filed by the Insurance Company but it appears from the impugned order that the main ground on which the claim had been rejected was the alleged delay in the intimation of the accident by the Complainant to the Insurance Company. Though it is true that in paragraph-8 of the Written Version filed by the Insurance Company, it was averred that the Complainant was not the owner of the vehicle in question nor had he paid the amount of the vehicle and, therefore, he was not entitled to the compensation for the loss suffered but, except for giving the details of certain amounts in paragraph-3 thereof, no other material had been placed on record by the Insurance Company establishing the identity of the real owner of the vehicle in question. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the afore-noted question had to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, which does not show any complexity of facts, as held by the Fora below.
In our view, therefore, since the District Forum had not examined the merits of the grievance of the Complainant and had non-suited him on the afore-noted short ground, it would be proper and expedient to remit the case back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication on merits on the basis of the pleadings and evidence filed by the parties in support of their respective stands.
Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the Complaint Case No. 30 of 2009 is restored to the board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits.
Since the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2009, we direct the District Forum to take a final decision in the Complaint as expeditiously as practicable but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 17.10.2016 for further proceedings in accordance with law.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.