CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MANAGER vs BIJALI GHOSH & ANR.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 1 September 2016 · Citation: (2016) 09 NCDRC CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K. Jain, M. Shreesha
CASE NUMBER
1753 of 2016
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

Although it is pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that in a similar matter, being Revision Petition No. 565 of 2016, notice has been issued by another Bench of this Commission, vide order dated 15.03.2016, and interim directions have also been issued but bearing in mind the fact that evidently the impugned order is based on the decision rendered by this Commission, in Revision Petition No. 3095 of 2010 and other connected Revision Petitions, no fault can be found with the impugned order, warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction.

2.

We may note that the plea sought to be raised in Ground (D), in the present Revision Petition, to the effect that in the final order passed by us in Revision Petition No. 3095 of 2010, Respondent No.2, namely, GTFS, has also been jointly held liable for negligence but the impugned order seems to have exonerated the GTFS, is also without merit inasmuch as the substantive directions by the District Forum, which have been affirmed by the State Commission are in consonance with the following observations in para 34 of our order dated 27.11.2015 in Revision Petition No.3095 of 2010: "We are convinced that these are cases of composite negligence on the part of the Insurance Company and GTFS. It is on account of this composite negligence that the nominees of the insured are suffering. Nevertheless, at this juncture, we do not have sufficient evidence on record to determine the extent of negligence on the part of GTFS so as to bifurcate the amounts payable under the policies. Therefore, under the circumstances, we hold that liability to pay the amounts in terms of the order passed by the Fora below, to the Complainants before us will be joint and several on the Insurance Company and GTFS. It will be open to the Complainants to enforce the orders in their favour against both or any of them."

3.

In view of the above, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine.