Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.L. Chaudhry, Presiding Member;
Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao & Mr. B.K. Taimni, Members
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.—Petitioner
versus
HARVANSH KUMAR ARORA—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 384 of 1997—Decided on 30.4.2001
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jos Chiramal and Mr. S. Disuja, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.K. Mathur, Advocate.
The Consumer Protection Act does not confer the power of review on the fora constituted under its provisions, and the power of review has to be created by a statute and exercised in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - The court held that the Consumer Protection Act does not confer the power of review on the fora constituted under its provisions. The court also emphasized that the power of review has to be created by a statute and exercised in accordance with the statutory provisions. The application for modification of the order was not considered as a correction of arithmetical or clerical mistake, and it was deemed impermissible to go behind the basic orders in the execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a claim seeking direction to the Insurance Company to pay for the repairs of his vehicle, which was completely damaged in an accident during the period of insurance. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest and compensation. The Insurance Company filed an application for modification of the order, which was dismissed by the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for modification was essentially a request for review, which the Consumer Protection Act does not confer upon the fora constituted under its provisions. It was also emphasized that the power of review has to be created by a statute and exercised in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court held that it is not legally permissible to go behind the basic orders in the execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: The issues involved the application for modification of the order dated 10.4.1996 passed by the State Commission, and the interpretation of the power of review under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the Consumer Protection Act does not confer the power of review on the fora constituted under its provisions, and that the power of review has to be created by a statute and exercised in accordance with the statutory provisions. It was also held that it is not legally permissible to go behind the basic orders in the execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 500/-.
Mr. Justice C.L. Chaudhry, Presiding Member—This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, U.P. dated 11.2.1997 dismissing the application of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. i.e. the petitioner in this revision petition for modification of the order dated 10.4.1996. The respondent, Mr. Harvansh Kumar Arora was the complainant before the State Commission. He filed a complaint seeking direction to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of repairs of his vehicle. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant purchased a new DCM Toyata for Rs. 2,00,000/- in the year 1987 and got it insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The vehicle met with an accident on 16.4.1989 during the period of insurance and was completely damaged. The complainant filed a claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor for assessing the loss which was assessed at Rs. 1,35,000/-. According to the complainant, the Insurance Company did not make the payment in spite of repeated reminders and that is why he was constrained to file the complaint before the State Commission.
2. The Insurance Company contested the claim of the claimant on various grounds. The parties were given opportunities to lead evidence. On appraisal of the material placed on the record, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the vehicle was not being driven in breach of any condition of the policy and the delay in finalising the claim was a deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. As a result thereof, the State Commission allowed the complaint and Insurance Company was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 17.3.1990 till the date of actual payment apart from Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation. The State Commission passed the order on 10.4.1996. It may be stated that the Insurance Company did not challenge the order of the State Commission and it became final.
3. The complainant filed an application under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for executing the order dated 10.4.1996 passed by the State Commission. On receipt of a notice for execution proceedings, an application for clarification of the order dated 10.4.1996 was filed by the Insurance Company on 16.7.1996. The prayer was made to modify the order dated 10.4.1996 on the ground that the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- was wrongly allowed as compensation by the State Commission on the basis of Surveyor’s report dated 18.3.1990. The amount was calculated on the basis of total loss of the vehicle and as such the salvage was to be returned to the applicant which was about Rs. 60,000/- and the total compensation which was due to the complainant should have been Rs. 75,000/-. Under these circumstances, it was prayed that the order of the State Commission under execution may be modified.
4. The application of the Insurance Company was contested on behalf of the complainant on the ground that there was no provision under Consumer Protection Act to review recall or modify its own order by the State Commission. On behalf of the Insurance Company, the reliance was placed on some provisions under C.P.C. regarding correction of arithmetical or clerical mistakes occurring in the order.
5. After considering the relevant contention of the parties, the State Commission returned the finding that the C.P.C. did not help the opposite party to get the order dated 10.4.1996 modified. As the opposite party’s case for modification to the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- and allowing the salvage to be returned or its value of Rs. 60,000/- to be adjusted was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake. As such no modification could be made in the order passed by the State Commission as it is not vested with a power of review under the Consumer Protection Act.
6. In view of the above finding, the State
