ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs RAMESH LAL

Respondent had been duly served for 17.02.2015. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent on that date as well as on today. Hence, respondent is proceeded exparte.

Heard.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party, that impugned order dated 05.02.2014, passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan while deciding the petitioner''s appeal, is non-speaking one and State Commission has not given any reasons whatsoever, as on what basis it has dismissed the appeal.

Respondent/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'') against the petitioner, alleging deficiency in service for not paying the insurance claim.

Petitioner contested the same by filing its written statement.

After hearing, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur City (for short ''District Forum'') vide order dated 14.10.2013, partly allowed the complaint.

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, (for short, ''State Commission'') which vide its impugned order dated 05.02.2014, dismissed the same.

Hence, the present revision.

The impugned order dated 05.02.2014 read as under: "This appeal has been filed by the appellant-respondent against the order dated 14.10.2013 of District Forum, Karauli. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant in detail. Perused the filed. The District Forum has passed the order after having considered in detail all the facts and evidences of the case. Hence, we do not find any reason to re-enquire all the facts and evidences of the case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, no lacuna is found in the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by Ld. District Forum, Karauli. Since the District Court has, on the basis of the facts on record, with right prudence, granted appropriate relief to the complainant, in which no basis of interfering is made out. As also, there appears no substance in the appeal on the basis of merit. Otherwise also, the Consumer Protection Act has been intended to provide speedy and simple redressal. Consumer expects speedy justice on his complaint. Therefore, general judicial process has been kept away in the Act, 1986. The District Forum and the Commission have to dispose of the complaint and appeal only in conformation of principle of natural justice. If the Commission or District Forum do not find any lacuna in the finding given on the basis of the evidence and documents available on file and in relief given with right prudence, according to the expressions of the Act 1986 no requirement remains to re-analyze all facts and evidences. It is also the same according to original expression U/s 3 of the Act, 1986 that for timely execution, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, Karauli in complaint case No.15/2012 is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merit. In case the appellant has deposited any money before the District Forum in the abovesaid appeal, he shall be at liberty to get the same

again. The appellant is given a month time to comply with the order of the District Forum. "

After going through the order, we are shocked to observe that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. It has not mentioned even the facts of the case nor it has dealt with any of the submissions made by either of the parties. It appears that the State Commission is not conversant with the legal position with regard to disposal of the first appeal. For the knowledge of the State Commission, we hereby quote the law as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India with regard to disposal of first appeal.

In HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004)10 SCC 86, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held ; " 4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows; 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 HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the details 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 appellant 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 ".

Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s)8811/2009 , decided on 21.2.2011, Hon''ble Apex Court observed ; " A bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons ".

Similarly, in the present case also the State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. In view of the decisions (supra) of the Hon''ble Supreme Court , the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal and has been passed without any application of judicial mind.

Hence, we hereby set aside the impugned order and allow the present revision petition. Consequently, we remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with mandate of law as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court.

The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of this order.

Parties to appear before the State Commission on 26.05.2015.

Dasti to both parties.