GOWARDHAN KANWAR vs STATE INSURANCE And G.P.F.

HEARD.

APPELLANT''s husband late Shri Kamal Singh was an employee of the Irrigation Department and as such entitled to the benefit of Personal Group Accident Policy issued by the respondent department. The appellant filed a Complaint No. 102/2000 under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the respondents claiming from them the assured amount in respect of the accidental death of her husband. In the course of trial of the complaint the D.F. came to know that the respondents had closed the claim of the appellant as "no claim." The D.F., therefore, vide its order dated 21.9.2000, directed the respondents to reopen the case of the appellant and finalise the same within a period of 3 months. Since the respondents could not finalise the claim of the appellant within the period allowed by the Forum, the appellant moved an application under Section 25 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the respondents. Disposing of such application by its order dated 21.6.2001 the D.F., though it disapproved the conduct of the respondent for having not finalised the case within the period 3 months, yet held that the appellant may seek her remedy in a regular way from a competent Court. The appellant thereupon filed the second complaint under Section 12 afresh which complaint was not dismissed by the D.F., vide its impugned order dated 29.8.2002 , on the ground that since the matter had already been decided by it vide orders dated 21.9.2000 and 21.6.2001, the second complaint was not maintainable in view of ratio decidendi of the case of Chief General Manager v. Narugopal Ghosh, 2002 (2) CPR 374. After having heard the learned Counsels for the parties we are of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable.

In view of the facts stated above, it is quite evident that neither by its order dated 21.9.2000, made in Complaint No. 102/2000, nor by the subsequent order dated 21.6.2001 made in Misc. Application No. 6/2001 under Section 25 of the Act the D.F. decided the dispute between the parties on merits. Since by its order dated 21.9.2000 the D.F. had directed the respondents to finalise the claim of the appellant and such claim was finalised by them on 25.1.2001, such order of the respondent gave rise to a cause of action to the appellant to file a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the D.F. But instead of filing such complaint, she filed an application under Section 25 of the Act for enforcement of the order dated 21.9.2000. The appellant may be justified in complaining against the conduct of the respondent in not finalising her claim within a period of 3 months, as was permitted by the D.F. vide its order dated 21.9.2000, but by such application the D.F. could not have granted a relief under Section 14 of the Act to her without treating such application as an application under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. However, when she had again moved an application under Section 12, the D.F. should have entertained such complaint and decided the same on merits and should not have dismissed the same summarily on the ground that the matter had already been examined by it in Complaint Case No. 102/2000 and Misc. Application under Section 25 of the Act No. 6/2001. The impugned order is, therefore, erroneous and liable to be set aside.

IN the result, the impugned order is set aside and the case remanded to the D.F. with the direction to entertain the complaint of the appellant and to dispose of the same on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the D.F. on 27.2.2004. Appeal disposed of.