MAHINDER PAL vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, in Complaint Case No. 455 of 11.9.2003, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant -complainant against the respondent -opposite parties was dismissed.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant got his truck bearing registration No. HR 46/5660 insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Gohana opposite party No. 2 vide policy No. 75032 for the period 17.11.1999 to 16.11.2000. The said truck met with an accident on 9.4.2000. The truck was being driven by Sumer Singh at the time of accident. F.I.R. No. 27/2000 was registered under Sections 279, 304 -A, I.P.C. with the Police Station, Waghi (Gujarat). Necessary intimation with regard to the accident was given to the opposite parties. A claim of rupees one lac was submitted to the opposite parties by the complainant. But no action was taken by the opposite parties in this regard with the result the claimant served a notice dated 22.4.2003 and another notice dated 16.8.2000, to make the payment of the claimed amount, but finding no response from the opposite parties, he filed the present complaint. On notice the opposite parties filed their appearance. They resisted the claim on the plea that it was time barred. It was also pleaded that the complainant has also filed a complaint earlier in the District Forum which was dismissed on 19.6.2000. On merits it was pleaded that the Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss who determined the same at Rs. 35,000, which could only be paid subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but as the complainant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, they were not to indemnify the claim in respect of the policy.

THE District Forum while dismissing the complaint took notice of the fact that the complainant had earlier filed Complaint No. 300 of 2003 titled as Mohinder Pal v. New India Assurance Co., etc. in which Sh. Daljeet Singh Advocate had represented him. It was also observed by the District Forum that on appraisal of the earlier complaint and the present complaint, it is apparent on record that both the complaints are based on the same cause of action. It was also observed that no permission was obtained by the complainant to file the present complaint and under these circumstances, the present complaint is not maintainable.

DURING the course of arguments learned Counsel representing the appellant admitted before us that the complainant did not file any appeal against the order dated 19.6.2003 whereby the earlier complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. It is also not disputed by her that no permission of the District Forum was obtained for filing the present complaint and in the absence of such permission, complaint would not lie. That being so, the filing of the second complaint by the complainant on the same cause of action would be abuse of the process of law. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and uphold the same. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.