Competent Dye Stuff And Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. vs ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THE complainant company got a car financed from opposite party No. 2 -ICICI Bank Ltd. The said car was got insured by the complainant with opposite party No. 1 -ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. The car met with an accident on 04 -08 -2011 and got extensively damaged. The claim lodged by the complainant with opposite party No. 1 was repudiated by the said company. Being aggrieved from repudiation of the claim, the complainant preferred a complaint which is pending before the State Commission. In the said complaint, the complainant also impleaded ICICI Bank Ltd. as opposite party No. 2.

VIDE interim order dated 21 -01 -2013 the State Commission restrained the bank from realizing the pending equated monthly installments from the complainant. Later on, when the bank put appearance and filed an application pointing out that it was an entity different from opposite party No. 1 -ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., the said interim order was vacated by the State Commission. Being aggrieved from the State Commission vacating the interim order dated 21 -01 -2013 the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vacating the interim order dated 21 -01 -2013 amounts to review of that order by the State Commission and as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr., : 2011 (9) SCC 541, the State Commission does not have a power to review its own orders. The State Commission was of the view that the interim order had been vacated by it in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 13(3)(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, which empowers the State Commission to pass interim order, as it may deem just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The power to pass interim order has implicit in it, the power to modify or vacate that interim order. In our view, if a consumer forum passes an interim order against a party to the complaint in the absence of such a party and later on the party against whom the interim order is made appears and brings such facts to the knowledge of the forum which would persuade the said forum to hold that the said interim order was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be open to the concerned forum to vacate or modify the said interim order and that would not amount to a review of the interim order passed by it. 3. In any case, Section 21(1)(b) of the Act empowers this Commission to call for the records and pass appropriate order in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission, where it appears to this Commission that the said Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted, in exercise of its jurisdiction, illegally or with material irregularity.

THIS is not the case of the complainant that the car in question met with an accident on account of some deficiency in the services provided to it by the ICICI Bank Ltd. The deficiency was imputed by the complainant to ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. which is a legal entity entirely separate from ICICI Bank Ltd. Therefore, the complaint filed in this case, in our view would be maintainable only against the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and not against the ICICI Bank Ltd. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the policy issued by opposite party No. 1 -ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby the ICICI Bank Ltd. has been shown to be the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of collecting the insurance premium. In our view, merely on account of ICICI Bank Ltd. having been appointed as its agent by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the purpose of collecting the insurance premium, the said bank does not lose its independent identity and the insurance company and the bank continue to remain two separate legal entities capable of suing and being sued. Therefore, the State Commission had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or at least has acted illegally in passing the interim order dated 21 -01 -2013. Therefore, this is a suitable case where, the said interim order dated 21 -01 -2013 should be vacated by us in exercise of the powers conferred upon us by Section 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner which is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent -ICICI Bank Ltd., we direct the State Commission to dispose of the complaint within three months of the next date fixed before it.