NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs K.K. PANDEY & ORS.

By this Revision Petition, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Party No.3 in the Complaint (for short "the Insurance Company"), calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 03.12.2014, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. FA/14/283. By the impugned order, while partly accepting the Appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company against the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 422/2010, the State Commission has remanded the case back to the District Forum, with a direction that after hearing both the parties, it shall decide the quantum of the compensation awarded by it in favour of Respondent No.1/Complainant vide order dated 20.03.2014. In other words, by the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the said decision of the District Forum insofar as the question of repudiation of the claim preferred under the policy in question, issued by the Insurance Company, was concerned.

Despite service of notice on all the Respondents, including the Complainant, they remain unrepresented although on the last date of hearing the Complainant was duly represented by his Counsel. Accordingly, we have heard Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

The short grievance of the Insurance Company is that the State Commission, while affirming the finding of the District Forum to the effect that Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim preferred under policy no. 45120031090100200648, has failed to consider in its correct perspective the intimation regarding dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of the policy since inception. Inviting our attention to paragraph-2 of the Written Version filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, learned Counsel submits that though it was specifically pleaded therein that on receipt of the memorandum from the Bank regarding dishonour of the cheque, vide its letter dated 12.01.2010, it had informed the Complainant that the policy issued in his favour had been cancelled, there was no rebuttal on behalf of the Complainant to the said specific averment in the Written Version.

Having perused the documents on record, including the afore-noted Written Version, we find substance in the submission made by learned Counsel.

In view of the above, we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order to the extent that it restricts fresh consideration of the Complaint by the District Forum only on the question of quantum of compensation, with a direction that while taking a fresh decision in the Complaint on the question of compensation the District Forum shall also examine the merits of the claim made by the Complainant, on the basis of the evidence already available on its record.

The Insurance Company/its Counsel is directed to appear before the District Forum on 25.01.2017 for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. After the order had been pronounced, Mr. Yashpal Singh, Counsel appearing for R-1/Complainant, has put in appearance. He has been apprised of the order passed.