Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana ®, President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member, Ms. Meena Verma, Member.
Smt. Kanta Devi - Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 20 of 2017
Decided On : 14-06-2017
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Execution Application - Regulation 14
Fact of the Case:
The executor, Kanta Devi, filed an execution application against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company for non-compliance with the order of the District Forum. The execution application was dismissed, and Kanta Devi filed a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution application was barred by limitation as per Regulation 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. The revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own litigation costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the executor filed the execution application within the limitation period specified in Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. 2. Final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the execution application was barred by limitation as per Regulation 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. It emphasized that Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a special law and prevails over general laws in case of conflict.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own litigation costs. The file of the Executing Forum was to be sent back, and the file of the State Commission was to be consigned to the record room.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R), President - Present revision filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by executor namely Kanta Devi. Executor is aggrieved against the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by District Executing Forum in execution application No. 62 of 2014 title Smt. Kanta Devi v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Another , wherein learned Executing Forum dismissed execution application filed by revisionist.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 46 of 2010 decided on dated 13.11.2013 ordered that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company would pay Rs. 40887/- (Forty thousand eight hundred eighty seven) to the complainant within thirty days from the receipt of copy of order failing which opposite parties No. 1 & 2 would pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant and learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 1500/- (One thousand five hundred) to the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that complainant would submit claim to the opposite parties regarding PA cover claim of owner-cum-driver within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter within next two months opposite parties would decide PA claim of owner-cum-driver.
3. Thereafter executor namely Kanta Devi filed execution application No. 62 of 2014 before learned District Executing Forum pleaded therein that opposite parties did not comply the order of learned District Forum dated 13.11.2013 relating to PA cover of owner-cum-driver.
4. Learned Executing Forum dismissed the execution application No. 62 of 2014 filed by executor on dated 13.07.2016. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 13.07.2016 passed by Learned Executing Forum present revision petition filed by Smt. Kanta Devi before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arises for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether revisionist namely Smt. Kanta Devi did not file execution application within limitation as mentioned under regulation No. 14 of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons:
7. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned executing forum has committed illegality by way of dismissing the execution application filed by executor and on this ground revision petition be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 46 of 2010 decided on dated 13.11.2013 ordered that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company would submit claim to the opposite parties regarding PA cover claim of owner-cum-driver within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter within next two months opposite parties would decide the PA claim of owner-cum-driver.
8. It is proved on record that copy of order was dispatched to revisionist/executor on dated 17.12.2013. As per regulation 14 of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 period of limitation for filing any application for which no period of limitation has been specified in the act would be thirty days from the date of cause of action or from the date of knowledge. Regulation 14 of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 is quoted below in toto:
14. Limitation - (1 ) Subject to the provisions of sections 15, 19 and 24A, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
(i) Revision Petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as the case may be.
(ii) Application for setting aside the ex-parte order under section 22A or dism
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
