UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs Rasid Khan

P class="paragraph">2. DELAY condoned. Respondent No. 1/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (for short, ''District Forum'') alleging deficiency in service on the part of Petitioner/opposite party No. 2, in not allowing his Insurance claim, lodged on account of theft of his Tractor.

THE complaint was contested by the Petitioner. District Forum vide order dated 3.6.2011, allowed the complaint.

BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, ''State Commission'') which vide its impugned order dated 29.1.2013, dismissed the same.

HENCE , the present revision. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

THE main grouse of petitioner is, that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Translated copy of the impugned order read as under:

"The Subordinate District Forum has passed the award after detailed analysis of the facts and evidences. Hence we do not find any expediency in analysis of the facts and evidences of the case again. Looking to the facts and evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum, Sawai Madhopur in Complaint No. 86/2009. As the District Forum has given reasonable relief to the complainant on the basis of facts came on record and there is no basis of interference. Hence on merit there is no point in the appeal.

Otherwise also the Consumer Protection Act has been made for immediate and easy disposal of the consumer complaints. The consumer expects immediate and easy disposal of his complaint. Hence the general legal proceedings has kept away in Act, 1986. The District Forum and the Commission has to dispose of the complaints immediately as per principles of natural justice. If the Commission do not find any infirmity in the findings and relief given by the District Forum in their order then as per motive of the Act, 1986 there is no need to again discuss and analyze all the facts and evidences. The main motive of Act 1986 as per Section 3 is also that for time implementation the sub -sections of this Act will be in addition to sections of any other law and not in deficiency.

Hence the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by District Forum, Sawai Madhopur in Complaint No. 86/2009 is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merit. If the appellant has deposited any amount in District Forum, Jaipur -I, he will be free to receive it back. The appellant is given time of one month for compliance of the order of District Forum."

AFTER going through the impugned order, we find that no reason whatsoever has been given by the State Commission, while deciding the appeal. The State Commission has not discussed at all the facts of the case nor it has considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. In this regard, we would like to apprise the State Commission about the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements.

IN HVPNL v. 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 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. v. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 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 v. 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 petitioner. In view of the above decisions (supra) of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is patently illegal. Therefore, we allow the present revision petition and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission, to decide the same afresh in accordance with the mandate of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

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

PARTIES are directed to appear before the State Commission on 9.7.2014. Dasti to both parties.