NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Ghanshyam Sharm

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 276/2013 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent no.1 purchased truck no. UP -17A -4177 and got it insured from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 24.2.2005 to 23.2.2006 and also got coverage of personal accident for Rs.2,00,000/ -. Truck met with an accident on 17.10.2005 and complainant sustained injuries. His left leg was amputated. He suffered 60% permanent disability. Complainant submitted his claim, but the same was not settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that no information of accident was given by the complainant to OP. It was further submitted that as per terms of insurance policy, claim was payable only in case of accident of the vehicle while the same being driven by owner of the vehicle. It was further submitted that as per FIR complainant was second driver and was checking air pressure of the tyres while the vehicle was stationary and he sustained injuries and was not entitled to any compensation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/ - with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.3,000/ - as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and has not considered grounds taken in memo of appeal; hence, revision petition 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/complainant submitted that as learned District forum had already discussed all aspects, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

HON ''ble Apex Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir, 2001 10 SCC 659 observed as under: "1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms: ''We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well -reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal''. 2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".

IN the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the parties.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 276/2013 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 20.04.2015