NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs JAGAN NATH

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 68 of 2008 - Jagan Nath Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent ''s car PB -11 -B -5337 was insured by OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 26.10.1998 to 25.10.1999. Car was stolen on 18.3.1999 and FIR was registered. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. Claim was submitted to the OP, but OP vide letter dated 16.8.2002 apprised that cover note has not been issued by the Company. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that no theft was committed and it was a concocted story and further submitted that no intimation was given to OP regarding theft of vehicle. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/ - along with 12% p.a. interest and further awarded cost of Rs.20,000/ - against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has considered documents which were not filed before District Forum; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by Ld. State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of order of District forum reveals that complainant did not file necessary documents in support of his complaint in the District forum and has filed about 21 documents before the State Commission along with application for taking documents on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that application for taking documents on record was not decided by learned State Commission and documents were not taken on record; even though, learned State Commission decided appeal after considering documents filed along with application. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute this factual aspect. As learned State Commission considered documents not forming part of record of Fora below and without allowing application and taking documents on record, impugned order is liable to set aside. Learned State Commission could have considered only those documents which were either filed before District Forum or taken on record by State Commission after allowing application for taking additional documents on record. In such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission to first decide application for taking documents on record and then to decide appeal on merits.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 23.4.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 68 of 2008 - Jagan Nath Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to first decide the application for taking additional documents on record and then decide appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 2.4.2014.