MANOJ KUMAR S/O. SH. MANGAL SINGH vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 16.03.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 1494/2014, "Manoj Kumar versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.", vide which, the said appeal was dismissed in default for the non-appearance of the petitioner/appellant/complainant before that Commission and in the process, the order dated 01.10.2014, passed by the District Forum, Hoshiarpur in consumer complaint No. 101/09.05.2014, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

The impugned order passed by the State Commission is reproduced as under:-

"In this appeal counsel for the appellant is not appearing from last 3 dates. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

The appeal is therefore dismissed in default for want of prosecution."

Alongwith the petition, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of Shri Kartik Gupta, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, explaining the reasons for his non-appearance before the State Commission on the appointed date and earlier dates as well. It is mentioned in the said affidavit that FA No. 1494/2014 had been listed for hearing before the State Commission on 16.11.2015. On that date, the counsel for the appellant got held up with some other case in the Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, but when he reached the office of the Commission at 12:30 PM, the case had already been adjourned to the next date, i.e., 29.01.2016. The same story was repeated on 29.01.2016 as well, when the Learned Counsel is stated to have been again busy before the Punjab & Haryana High Court and reached the State Commission at 12:30 PM. It is stated that on that date, the case was adjourned for next appearance on 16.03.2016, but the learned counsel wrongly noted the date as 07.06.2016. Consequently, when the case was taken-up for hearing on 16.03.2016, none was present for the appellant and the State Commission passed the impugned order as quoted above, observing that there had been no-appearance on behalf of the appellant for the last three dates.

During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that keeping in view the position explained in the affidavit of the learned counsel, the appeal should be ordered to be restored before the State Commission. Moreover, the client should not be allowed to suffer for the fault of the counsel, if any. However, the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company opposed the restoration, saying that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law as there had been no appearance by the petitioner before the State Commission for three consecutive dates. In case, the learned counsel for the appellant was busy with some other case, he could have deputed some other counsel to make appearance before the State Commission, or he could have ensured that the client was present before the State Commission to apprise the correct position about the attendance of the said counsel. The State Commission had, therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal in default and the said order should be upheld.

The learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company further argued that even on merits, the petitioner/appellant/complainant had no valid ground to agitate the issue before the consumer fora. The learned counsel has drawn attention to a copy of the consumer complaint and the order passed by the District Forum dated 01.10.2014 in this regard. The learned counsel stated that the issue involved in the case was damage to the Toyota Innova car belonging to the complainant, in an accident. As per the report of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, the vehicle suffered loss to the tune of 6,15,169.96 on repair basis and 4,25,000/- net of salvage basis. During discussion between the parties, the complainant submitted an affidavit dated 13.03.2013, duly attested by a Magistrate for the settlement of the claim. The OP Insurance Company sanctioned the claim as per the settlement and a letter dated 17.07.2013 was written to the complainant to supply the documents required for payment of claim. Since nothing was heard from the side of the complainant, the insurance company sent a number of letters to him for settling the matter, but the complainant chose to file the consumer complaint in question. The learned counsel argued that considering the facts as narrated, there had been no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company in any manner and hence, the consumer complaint in question was not maintainable. The learned counsel also stated that a perusal of the consumer complaint itself showed that the complainant did not make any mention about the said affidavit dated 13.03.2013 executed by him in the consumer complaint.

The learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner admitted that affidavit dated 13.03.2013 had been filed by them before the District Forum. He further stated that the complainant would be satisfied if the amount is paid by the insurance company as per the settlement reached between them. In the present revision petition also, there is mention about the said affidavit, having been filed before the District Forum and a copy of the same has also been produced on record.

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

It is abundantly clear from the facts and documents on record that an affidavit dated 13.03.2013 was submitted by the petitioner/complainant, saying that a sum of 4.25 lakh shall be paid by the OP Insurance Company as compensation to the complainant and the salvage will be retained by him. Even at the stage of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was ready to accept the amount as stated in the said affidavit. It is evident, therefore, that the allegation of deficiency in service made by the petitioner/complainant on the OP Insurance Company is not established at all. We therefore, tend to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company that the Consumer Complaint in question was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora as deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company does not stand established.

Now, coming to the impugned order passed by the State Commission, it is clear that there was no appearance for the appellant on three consecutive dates. In case, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant was busy with some other matter, he could have made arrangements to give proper information to the State Commission, or should have asked the client to put appearance before the State Commission. Since nothing of that sort was done, we do not find any justification for any modification in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. It is clear therefore that there is no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. The revision petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.