Back
2000 Supreme(Ker) 118
Judges : S.SAGHIR AHMAD,D.P.WADHWA
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Srinivasan - Respondent
Case No : C.A. No. 11439 of 1996
Decided On : 02/28/2000
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner:--- For the Respondent:---
The rules of procedure are intended to serve the ends of justice and not to defeat the dispensation of justice.
Headnote:
Insurance - Consumer Protection - S.13, S.14(3), S.30(2) - The court discussed the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, and the power of the District Forum to dismiss a case in default. It also highlighted the absence of a provision similar to 0.9 R.9(1) CPC in the Consumer Protection Act, and the court's discretion to dismiss a fresh complaint on the ground of abuse of process. The court emphasized that the rules of procedure are intended to serve the ends of justice and not to defeat the dispensation of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant for damages to his insured vehicle. The complaint was dismissed in default, and a fresh complaint was filed. The appellant opposed the claim, citing the dismissal of the first complaint and the rejection of the restoration application.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the interest of justice cannot be defeated by technical rules, especially when the claim is not being questioned on merits and the whole claim amount has already been paid to the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action would lie, considering the dismissal of the first complaint and the rejection of the restoration application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the absence of a provision similar to 0.9 R.9(1) CPC in the Consumer Protection Act, and emphasized the court's discretion to dismiss a fresh complaint on the ground of abuse of process.
Final Decision: The court found no merits in the appellant's contention and dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.
1. The respondent, who was the owner of Vehicle No. TN-67-1931, approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras ("the State Commission" for short) against the appellant in respect of the damage caused to his vehicle, which was insured with the appellant. The claim for damages for Rs. 1,47,141.70 p. was filed sometime in October 1992. On 8.2.1993, the complaint was dismissed in default. Two days later, namely, on 10.2.1993, the respondent filed an application for restoration of the complaint, but the application was dismissed by the State Commission and the complaint was not restored.
2. In April 1993, the respondent filed a fresh complaint against the appellant, but this complaint was filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamarajar, Srivilliputhur, (the 'District Forum' for short) in respect of the aforesaid vehicle, for the same amount, viz. for Rs. 1,47,141.70p.
3. The claim was opposed by the appellant, who filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that it had already settled the insurance claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 62,811 after scrutiny of the relevant papers and the survey report. This amount was offered to the respondent, who declined to receive the claim compensation and, therefore, in the particular circumstances of the case, there was no deficiency in service and the appellant was not liable to pay any damages under the Act nor could a claim be filed against the Insurance Company. It was further pleaded that in view of the fact that a similar complaint instituted by the respondent before the State Commission was dismissed in default and the Commission had also refused to restore it, a fresh complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable.
4. The District Forum, by its order dated 19.12.1994, allowed the claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,47,141.70 p. together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from 26.11.1991. This order was challenged by the appellant before the State Commission, Madras, on the ground, inter alia, that a second complaint could not be legally instituted by the respondent as the first complaint, which was dismissed for default, was not restored. The State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 12.6.1995. The appellant, thereafter, filed a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 27.2.1996.
5. The only question raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the dismissal of the first complaint filed by the respondent, a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action would not lie and it ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. It is contended that the second complaint was filed in respect of the same vehicle and for the same amount and against the same party from which damages were claimed earlier, and once the complaint was dismissed, though for default, a second complaint would not lie, specially as the application for restoration was also rejected by the State Commission.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the contrary, contended that by contending that a second complaint was not maintainable as the first complaint had been dismissed in default, the appellant was merely trying to invoke the rule of "prohibition" contained in 0.9 R.9 CPC which is not applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also contended that while the first complaint was filed against the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sattur, the second complaint was filed against the Divisional Manager and the Regional Manager, as the Branch Manager had no right or power to settle claims of the value of Rs.1 lakh and above, which jurisdiction was vested only in the Divisional Manager and the Regional Manager. It is contended that in view of there being new opposite parties, the dismissal of the first complaint for default would not operate as a bar to the entertainment
