Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
New India Assurance Company Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Sabitri Devi and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3565 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 25/11/2016 in
Appeal No. 212/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 15.6.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Soumy Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
It is not necessary to decide inter se dispute between the defendants in a suit and claim of plaintiff has to be decided.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 and 2(1)(g) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 and 2(11) – Accident – Policy claim – Scope – Complainant took Group Janta Personal Accident Policy for sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000 – His son died in an accident – District Forum allowed claim of Rs. 2,00,000 with Rs. 2000 towards cost of litigation – State Commission upheld the same – Hence this revision petition – Once order of Supreme Court passed in Sugiya Devi’s case, which is a similar case, no direction remains with this commission to take any other view in the matter – It is not necessary to decide inter se dispute between the defendants in a suit and claim of the plaintiff is to be decided – Revision petition not sustainable in view of Apex Court order dated 25.12.2016 as passed in Sugiya Devi’s case. (Paras 10 to 14)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-1, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 25.11.2016 passed in First Appeal No. A/212/2015 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (For short, State Commission’) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum has been upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that son of respondent no.1/complainant, Dipak Singh (since deceased) had taken an insurance policy styled, “Group Janta Personal Accident Policy” for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000. On 15.01.2013, complainant’s son died in an accident. The insurance claim was filed by the complainant /respondent no.1 which was not settled by the OPs. Hence, the case was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 09.01.2015 has allowed the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. A/212/2015 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2016.
4. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 both were present and also heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent no.2 had wrongly insured son of respondent no.1/complainant therefore, claim was not liable to be paid. Learned counsel for petitioner further stated that respondent no. 2 is also negligent and should be jointly and severally liable towards the payment of the claim. Both the fora below have passed erroneous orders without looking at the objections filled by the petitioner insurance company.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 stated that in a similar matter, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sugiya Devi and another, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7732/2016 decided on 25.11.2016, Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order that 100% amount should be deposited by the insurance company and the same may be released to the complainant and the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 may be settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the complainant is not concerned as to who pays the claim, the petitioner or the respondent No.2.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 agreed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that this case needs to be decided on the basis of the order dated 25.11.2016 in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered the total insurance amount to be deposited by the Insurance Company before the District Forum and the same would be released to the complainant by the District Forum without asking for any security. Therefore nothing remains pending in this revision petition as the same may be disposed of by ordering the insurance company to deposit the insurance amount before the District Forum and the same should be released in favour of the complainant/respondent no.1 by the District Forum.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that this bench in RP No.2608 of 2016 decided on 10.2.2018, though dismissed the revision petition but left open the dispute between the insurance company and GTFS subject to order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 7732, 7889-7955 of 2016. He stated that in RP No.1752 of 2016 and RP No. 122 of 2016 decided on 13.4.2017, this Commission only dismissed the revision petitions without observing anything on the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The learned counsel argued that this bench of the Commission has to pass order similar to that passed by the coordinate bench and to support his contentions, he referred to the following cases:
1. A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SC C 602 at Paragraph 183
2. Venkateswara Rice Mill Vs. State of A.P. (1971) 2 SCC 650 at paragraph 9
