IMPORTANT POINT
Disposal of appeal in limine in a summary manner amounts to violation of principle of natural justice.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—No one appears on behalf of respondent No.1 even on the third call. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service of notice, even on the third call. Respondents are, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.

2. Heard. In view of the reason given in the application, delay in filing of revision petition is condoned.

3. This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Rajasthan dated 20.07.2017 in Appeal No. 55/2016.

4. Facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that vehicle no. RJ-31UA-2101 belonging to the respondent complainant was insured with the petitioner opposite party. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.6,55,500/-. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in substantial damage. Intimation was given to the insurance company. The complainant was advised to get the vehicle repaired. It is the case of the complainant that he spent sum of Rs.3,13,174/- on the repair of the vehicle but the petitioner insurance company sanctioned the claim for Rs.1,28,618/- and refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,84,450/-. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the respondent filed a consumer complaint.

5. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement denying the allegations of deficiency in service. It was pleaded that insurance claim of the respondent complainant was rightly settled at Rs.1,28,618/- and the respondent complainant on being satisfied with the sanctioned amount, received the amount in full and final settlement of insurance claim.

6. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.1,01,095/- within one month failing which it was ordered that complainant shall be entitled to 9% interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of judgment till the realization of the amount.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal. The State Commission Rajasthan vide impugned order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that State Commission has committed a grave error in deciding the appeal in limine in a cryptic manner without even addressing the ground of appeal taken by the petitioner. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on relevant observation of the State Commission to see how the State Commission has dealt with the appeal. The relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under:

“Arguments heard and perused the documents.

Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant was insured and met with an accident. The said vehicle was repaired, on which Rs.3,13,174/- was spent. The claim of insurance was paid only Rs.1,28,618/- and no valid reason was given for the remaining amount.

District Forum after discussion has got paid the remaining amount in which no fault can be found. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine.”

9. On reading of the above, it is clear that State Commission has decided the appeal in a cryptic manner without even answering the grounds taken by the petitioner in appeal, ignoring the fact that First Appellate Court is a Court of fact and it is supposed to re-appreciate the facts while deciding the appeal. In our view, the disposal of appeal in limine in such a summary manner amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. As such, impugned order cannot be sustained. We accordingly, allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the State Commission with direction to decide the appeal on merits after due hearing to the parties.

10. Petitioner to appear before the State Commission on 04th October, 2017.

Revision Petition allowed.