NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Kajod Meena

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.05.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 283/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Kajod Meena and Ors. 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. RJ -25RA -2141 after getting loan from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 and it was insured with OP No. 1/petitioner. During currency of insurance, on 29.8.2008 when vehicle was parked for bringing diesel it was stolen. Complainant intimated to the Police on telephone on the same day. On 30.08.2008, complainant went to lodge report, but report was not taken by Police. Thereafter, complainant filed complaint before Court and report was registered by Police through court. Complainant lodged claim with OP No. 1 which was avoided. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complain t was filed before Court after 9 days and FIR was registered after 24 days and OP was intimated on 7.10.2008 whereas he should have been intimated immediately. It was further submitted that driver left vehicle with key unattended at a lonely place. It was further submitted that driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of incident and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay insured amount of tractor with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/ - and Rs. 1000/ - as litigation cost. Appeal filed by OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

NONE appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex -parte 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''.

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 09.05.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 283/2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Kajod Meena and Ors. 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.