IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, interference from this Commission cannot be sought.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Prabha Tyagi against the order dated 07.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarkhand, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.215 of 2013.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the petitioner was insured with the opposite party for Rs.2,64,550/- from 12.6.2005 to 11.6.2006. Personal accident cover for Rs.2,00,000/- was also there. On 15.07.2005 vehicle met with an accident. Complainant filed CC No.58 of 2010 seeking Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident cover. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 20.09.2010. Then complainant filed CC No.243 of 2011 seeking balance of the personal accident cover and salvage value of the vehicle Rs.1,17,000/-. District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 08.07.2013 and directed Insurance Company to pay the total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. State Commission allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company vide its order dated 07.12.2016.

3. Hence the present revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that earlier this fact was not known to the petitioner that the Personal Accident cover was for Rs.2,00,000/-. The petitioner was under a wrong impression that the policy was for only Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, the earlier complaint was filed only for Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the policy, the petitioner is entitled to total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the Personal Accident cover and therefore, the present complaint was filed, which was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 08.07.2013. However, the State Commission has accepted the appeal of the Insurance Company and disallowed complaint on the ground of constructive res judicata and on the ground of limitation.

6. It was further argued by the learned counsel that res judicata will only operate when the claim is same between the parties, whereas in the present case, the claim is now for additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid by the Insurance Company as per the order dated 20.09.2010 of the District Forum passed in earlier complaint. To support his case learned counsel referred to the following judgements:-

(1) Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., dated 02.09.1996 (Supreme Court). It has been held that:

“In view of the above ratio, it is seen that when the Legislature has directed to act in a particular manner and the failure to act results in a consequence, the question is whether the previous order operates as res judicata or estoppel as against the persons in dispute. When the previous decision was found to be erroneous on its face, this court held in the above judgment that it does not operate as res Judgment. We respectfully follow the ratio therein. The principle of estoppel or res Judgment does not apply where to give effect to them would be to counter some statutory direction or prohibition. A statutory direction or prohibition cannot be over-ridden or defeated by a previous judgment between the parties.”

(2) Mahesh Chand Vs. B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr., Appeal (crl.) 1276 of 2002, decided on 04.12.2002, (SC). It has been held that:-

“Keeping in view the settled legal principles, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in holding that the second complaint was completely barred. It is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Sec. 204 Cr.P.C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. As held in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar’s case (supra) second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further, second