Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mangeram

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 377 of 2013 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mange Ram by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent ''s motorcycle HR 16 G 8217 was insured by OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 29.12.2010 to 28.12.2011. Motorcycle was stolen on 30.01.2011. FIR was lodged, but FR was submitted which was accepted by the Court on 11.03.2011. Complainant intimated to OP immediately and later on submitted claim which was repudiated on the ground of delayed information by 42 days to the OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as FIR was lodged after 7 days and intimation of theft of motorcycle was given after 42 days, complainant violated Condition No. 1 of the insurance policy; hence, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.29,963/ - and Rs.2,000/ - as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is not a speaking order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as District Forum has already discussed all the facts, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of impugned order reveals that this order neither contains any fact, nor law, nor any reason for upholding order of District Forum. This order has not met with grounds raised in memo of appeal. Petitioner has taken the ground of delayed FIR and delayed information to Insurance Company. Learned State Commission ought to have dealt with all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. Hon ''ble Apex Courtin (2001) 10 SCC 659 - HVPNL Vs. Mahavir 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 ''. 2. 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 arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with 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 petitioner in memo of appeal.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and impugned order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 377 of 2013 - Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangeram 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 7.7.2014. A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.