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
4 paragraphs · 381 words-THE petitioner did not appear despite a pass-over, during the hearing for admission.
THIS petition challenges the order dated 24. 10. 2007 of the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereafter, the ''state Commission'') in the cross-appeals mentioned above. By this order, the State Commission set aside the order dated 12. 4. 2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack (the ''district Forum'') directing the respondent Insurance Company to pay a compensation Rs. 50,000 to the complainant (petitioner here ). In doing so, the State Commission observed, inter alia, that it was not legal for the District Forum to direct the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the complainant after holding that the latter was not guilty of any deficiency in service. One of the main grievances of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed by the State Commission without giving him an opportunity of being heard though he had filed an appeal before the State Commission praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum. From the order of the State Commission, it is clear that the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company was present and heard but "none appeared for the complainant".
We might have thought it fit to go further into the allegation of the petitioner (that he was not even issued a notice by the State Commission with regard to his appeal) had the petitioner taken the trouble of appearing before us and had there been some merit in the substantive issues in the petition. The detailed order of the District Forum is enough to establish that the Insurance Company was right, on several grounds, in repudiating the inordinately-delayed claim lodged (November 2002) by the father of the complainant after the latter had met with an accident (March 2002) and suffered some disability as a result. The State Commission also correctly analysed the scope of coverage of the long-term Janata Personal Accident Policy of the Insurance Company of which the complainant had availed.
ON consideration of the material before us, we do not find any material irregularity, legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission. As a result, this revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on merits. R. P. dismissed.