AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the learned Orissa State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Cuttack (in short, ''the State Commission '') in CD Case No. 28 of 2000 - UmakantGupta Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. bywhich, complaint was dismissed.
BRIEF facts of the case are that AdinathOil Industries, Udaipur who had taken marine open declaration policy from OP, consigned 145 quintals of lose mustard oil in Vehicle No. DL -1 G -1373 worth Rs.4,00,000/ - to complainant/appellant. On 22.11.1997, the vehicle met with an accident and there was loss of some quantity of oil due to pilferage from the tanker. Matter was reported at Police Station and to OP/respondent. Respondent appointed surveyor and found that there was shortage of 74 quintals and 30 kgs. mustardoil and surveyor assessed loss of Rs.1,96,895.06, but OP asked complainant to settle for Rs.1,32,624/ -, which was denied by complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable due to misjoinder and non -joinder of necessary parties. It was further submitted that complainant UmakantaGupta is neither insured, nor beneficiary and partnership firm of complainant cannot carry -on -business for their self -employment and do not fall within purview of consumer. It was further submitted that surveyor assessed loss of 49.60 quintal worth Rs.1,28,862.76and OP rightly sent disbursement voucher to complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground that complainant was not competent to file complaint as there was no provision in partnership deed authorising complainant to file complaint on behalf of partnership firm.
APPELLANT filed application for amendment of complaint and memo of appeal and that application was allowed and complainant filed amended memo of parties in the complaint and amended memo of appeal depicting firm as complainant through its partner UmakantaGupta. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that as complaint stands filed by the firm through its partner, complaint filed by appellant be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as complaint was dismissed by learned State Commission only on the ground of maintainability and has not considered other aspects, matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission.
PERUSAL of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has dismissed complaint only on the ground of maintainability and held that as partnership deed did not authorise one of the partner complainant UmakantaGupta to institute complaint, complaint was not maintainable. This Commission has allowed amended memo of complaint and now complaint stands filed by the firm through partner UmakantGupta, in such circumstances, ground of dismissal of complaint now stands non -existent.
LEARNED State Commission has not dealt any other aspect regarding grant of compensation and in such circumstances, matter has to be remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties because complainant claimed Rs.5,11,174/ - whereas respondent sent discharge voucher for Rs.1,28,862.78.
CONSEQUENT LY , appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 30.10.2007 passed by learned State Commission in C.D. Case No. 28 of 2000 - UmakantaGupta Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
PARTIES are directed to appear before the State Commission on 9.10.2014.
REGISTRY is directed to send copy of amended memo of parties in the consumer complaint along with order.