Jasbir Singh vs United India Insurance Company Limited

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 2329/2006 dated 30.04.2012.

According to the Petitioner/Complainant, he and his cousin Kashmir Singh are the owners of a combine harvester with Registration No. PB-58-A-3214. Both are drivers as well as owners of the said combine which was got insured from the Respondent/Opposite Party vide Cover Note No. 127410 from 10.04.2004 to 09.04.2005. It was stated that according to the said insurance policy, Respondent would be responsible for any happening/accident caused to the owner, its driver and other persons at the time of working of the combine. On 27.05 2004, around 10:30 am, the Petitioner and his father alongwith some others were operating the said combine for threshing Sun-flower and accidently the left foot of the Petitioner slipped and fell on the berma of the combine and got cut.The Petitioner was brought in the Moonga Hospital, Mahesh Nagar wherein Dr. Tarsen Moonga operated upon the Petitioner and finding no other way, amputated his left foot. The Petitioner has become permanently disabled due to injury. The Petitioner and his father made numerous requests to the Respondent to settle the claim but to no effect. Hence, Complaint No. 329 / 2004 was filed by the Petitioner in District Forum, Ambala alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.

The Complaint was contested by the Respondent by filing written statement raising objections and denying the averments of the Petitioner. The Respondent submitted that the present Revision Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner had withdrawn Complaint Case No. 329 of 2004 filed before the District Forum by giving statement before the State Commission.Once the Petitioner has withdrawn the Complaint, there is no locus to challenge the order passed by the State Commission.The Bar Council vide resolution dated 06.01.2013 and after going through the Complaint and comments of the Advocate has resolved that there being no substance in the Complaint, the same is dismissed.On merits also, the Petitioner Jasbir Singh was not covered under the Policy.Only Kashmir Singh, driver was covered for personal accident to the extent of Rs.2 lacs only.The Petitioner was neither covered by the Policy nor was a third party, hence the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to the Petitioner as per terms and condition of the Policy.The personal accident premium for Kashmir Singh was not only reflected in the Policy but also in the Proposal Form.

The District Forum, vide order dated 28.08.2006, allowed the Complaint on the ground that in the Policy produced by the Respondent himself, the name of the Petitioner was clearly mentioned in the column of insured's name. Hence, in this way, the Respondent contradicted his own version that the Petitioner was not insured. Respondent was directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs with interest @12% p.a. from 27.05.04 till its payment as compensation for permanent disability as well as expenditure spent on treatment and Rs. 1000/- towards cost of proceedings.

Thereafter, the Respondent filed Appeal No. 2329 dated 4.10.2006 before the State Commission against the Petitioner. On 30.04.2012, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner gave a statement before the State Commission that her client has instructed her to withdraw C.C. No. 329 of 2004 filed before the District Forum, Ambala with liberty to the Petitioner to approach Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal having the territorial jurisdiction.Consequent upon the withdrawal of the Complaint Case, the State Commission ordered on 30.04.2012 that the appeal has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application before the State Commission seeking recalling of order dated 30.04.2012. The State Commission vide order dated 13.07.2012, dismissed the application of the Petitioner on the basis of the Judgement passed in "Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Another" [(2011) CPJ 35 (SC)], wherein Supreme Court has held that the District Forum and the State Commission are restricted to review or recall their own order.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. They had reiterated the arguments as already stated above.Also carefully perused the record.

According to the Petitioner he engaged Ms. Veena Bhutani Shethi, Advocate to be his counsel in Complaint Case No. 329/2004 before the State Commission.The Complainant was withdrawn by the learned Counsel without his instructions.He also filed a complaint with the Secretary, Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana on 11.09.2012 that the learned counsel has recorded written statement before the State Commission in which Kashmir Singh was mentioned as driver at the time of accident, though he was driving the combine and Kashmir Singh was not present at the time of accident.She withdraw the complaint without his instructions and therefore, strict action should be taken against Ms. Veena Bhutani Shethi.Ms. Veena Bhutani Shethi in her reply to the complaint stated that during the arguments in State Commission, the President commented that since Jasbir Singh was not covered under the Policy, his complaint was not maintainable.Shri Joginder Singh, father of Jasbir Singh, who was present in the court room told her that he had discussed with his son Jasbir Singh and she was instructed to withdraw the complaint as they would not go to National Commission or to any higher court and will file compensation before MACT.On the instructions of the father of the Petitioner Sh. Joginder Singh, for the welfare of the Petitioner Jasbir Singh, she made the statement in the presence of Sh. Joginder Singh in the court and the Hon'ble Court gave 60 days' time to approach the MACT, having proper territorial jurisdiction for redressal of grievance on the same cause of action.

The main issue in the present case is the withdrawal of the Complaint in the State Commission of Haryana by the Counsel of the Petitioner/Complainant.The order of the District Forum is in favour of the Petitioner where the Respondent was directed to pay Rs.5 lakh with interest as well as expenditure spent on treatment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceedings.Appeal was filed by the Respondent in the State Commission and prima-facie there appears to be no reason why the Petitioner should have withdrawn the complaint.However, even if one were to buy the version of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order of the District Forum was likely to be set aside by the State Commission and, therefore, in the interest of the Petitioner she sought to withdraw the Complaint, it was her bounded duty to have sought the consent of the Petitioner, rather than the father of the Petitioner in withdrawing the Complaint.Further, if the consent of the Petitioner had been taken he would have certainly sought the alternative remedy of approaching the MACT and not approaching this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

The Petitioner has also filed complaint to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has given a bald order, dismissing the complaint of the Petitioner without giving a reasoned order.

In view of the above and taking the totality of the circumstances and the main fact that the consent of the Petitioner was not obtained by the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner in withdrawing the Complaint, we deem it fair and appropriate and reasonable to remand the case back to the State Commission for fresh hearing and to decide the case on merits.This Revision Petition stands disposed off on the above terms.There shall be no order as to costs.

The Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 04.02.2019.