AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission ) in Complaint Case No. CC/06/108 Rajgad Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was partly allowed.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/appellant s stock of sugar was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 7.1.2005 to 6.1.2006. In the month of July -August, 2005, due to heavy rains, stock of sugar was badly damaged. Complainant lodged claim for Rs.99,99,728/ - with the OP, but OP s surveyor assessed loss of Rs.16,39,507/ -. OP neither accepted nor rejected claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP is ready to settle the claim to the extent estimated by surveyor and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing Counsel for the OP allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.16,39,507/ - against which, this appeal has been filed.
RESPONDENT No. 3 was deleted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission decided complaint without giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State Commission rightly allowed complaint as per surveyors report; hence, appeal be dismissed.
PERUSAL of impugned order clearly reveals that none appeared for the complainant before State Commission and impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to Counsel for the complainant. Perusal of record further reveals that Mr Balasaheb Deshmukh, Advocate was engaged by complainant. Matter was adjourned from time to time and on 23.9.2013 the matter was listed at Sr. No. 19 in which name of the Advocate has been shown as Ulhas T Naik whereas, Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh was Advocate for the complainant. As complainant s Counsel s name was not shown in the cause list, it was not expected from the Counsel for the complainant to appear on 23.9.2013. On previous date 24.7.2013, both parties were not present before State Commission and matter was adjourned to 23.9.2013 and in such circumstances, no proper notice to complainant s counsel can be presumed. As learned State Commission has decided complaint without giving opportunity of being heard to Counsel for the complainant, it would be proper to set aside impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission.
LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that as State Commission has already allowed claim as per surveyors report, there would be no use of remanding the matter back to Learned State Commission. This argument is devoid of force because had complainant accepted amount as estimated by surveyor, he would not have filed complaint. He has claimed more than Rs.99 lakhs in the complaint whereas only Rs.16,39,507/ - has been allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and in such circumstances, complainant has every right to contest the complaint before State Commission.
CONSEQUENT LY , appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 23.9.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint Case No. CC/06/108 M/s. Rajgad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide it after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
PARTIES are directed to appear before State Commission on 26.11.2014.