Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
M.M. Sharma —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1798 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 16/10/2017 in Appeal No. 421/2014 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 12.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. R.K. Parashar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When the matter is settled and compromised between the parties, filing appeal and revision against the order in appeal are not maintainable and are liable to be set aside.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Revision—Complaint filed by the respondent / complainant was allowed with costs—Thereafter Execution Petition was filed and both the parties entered into a compromise and the Petitioner paid the amount to the respondent / complainant which was recorded by the District Forum in the Execution Petition filed—Subsequently, the complainant preferred an appeal on merits ( by suppressing the settlement and receipt of the amount) which was allowed by the State Commission on merits—Neither parties have at the mentioned the matter was settled and payment was also made—Hence, the present revision against the orders of the State Commission—Heard the counsels, perused the documents—Since the matter is already settled and complainant received the amount, the order passed by the State Commission is not valid and hence set aside—Accordingly, the revision petition is not maintainable and hence the same is disposed of accordingly.
Result: Revision Petition is disposed of as the matter is already compromised between the parties and payment is received by the Complainant.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—In a Consumer Complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, the District Forum, vide its order dated 20.03.2014, directed as under:—
1. To restore the cumulative bonus of Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant and his wife which was earned and accumulative over the years.
2. To reduce and restore the original insured value of the mediclaim policy to Rs.1,00,000/- which was arbitrarily enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- each for the complainant and his wife and refund the excess premium of Rs.19,038/- with interest 12% up till payment.
3. To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment inclusive of litigation expenses.
2. After the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant/respondent executed a consent dated 11.09.2014 which reads as under:—
Execution Case No.153/14 in Complaint No.CC/619/10
MM Sharma The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Consent of Complainant
As per discussions held with Mrs. Beena dhawna Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I agree to receive payment of Rs.79,440/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Forty) in full and final settlement of the amount awarded as per order dt. 20/3/2014 of the district consumer forum-VI New Delhi in the above case.
I further agree to forego my claim for cumulative bonus of Rs.50,000/- and agree that my mediclaim policy may be continued for 1.50 lacs, subject to payment of premium by me.
MR. MM Sharma
Complainant
New Delhi
Dated: 11/9/2014
3. Thereafter, the petitioner handed over a cheque of Rs.79,440/- to the complainant before the District Forum on 23.09.2014 when the following order was passed by the District Forum which reads as under:—
“23/09/2017
Pr. Both DH and JD
JD has brought cheque no. 410684 dated 19/09/14 for sum of Rs.79,440/- as per execution order. JD has satisfied the decree. Signature of both parties obtained on order sheet. Case is disposed off.
File be consigned to Record Room (R/R).”
The complainant also preferred FA No.421 of 2014 before the concerned State Commission challenging the order passed by the District Forum on 20.03.2014. In the said appeal, the following order was passed by the State Commission on 16.10.2017:
“11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is modified to the effect that respondent would restore original insured value of rest medi-claim policy to Rs.1,00,000/- which was arbitratrily enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- each to the complainant and his wife and to refund the excess premium with interest @ 12% from 24.02.07 till the continuation of policy. The respondent would abide by directions to restore accumulated bonus of Rs.50,000/- each to complainant and his wife earned and accumulated by them over years and pay Rs.50,000/- inclusive of litigation expenses as already awarded by the District Forum.”
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. It is evident from the order passed by the State Commission that the settlement dated 11.09.2014 was not brought by either party to the notice of the State Commission and as a result, the State Commission decided the appeal filed by the complainant on merits without taking note of the settlement. In all fairness, the complainant himself should have brought the said settlement to the notice of the State Commission instead of pursuing the appeal on merits. That however, was not done and the settlement was not brought to the notice of the State Commission either by the petitioner or by the respondent/complainant.
5. Be that as it may, since the parties had already entered into a settlement before the impugned order came to be passed by the State Commission, the said order dated 16.10.2017 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The payment in terms of the settlement has already been made to the complainant. The petitioner shall comply with the second part of the settleme
