AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-1, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 24.5.2017 passed in First Appeal No.A/146/2016 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (For short, State Commission' ) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum has been upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that husband of respondent no.1/complainant, Shri Swapan Kumar Nath (since deceased) had taken an insurance policy styled, "Janta Personal Accident Policy" for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000. On 8.11.2009, complainant's husband died in a road accident. The insurance claim was filed by the complainant /respondent no.1 which is yet to be settled by the OPs. Hence, the case was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 20.1.2016 has allowed the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. A/146/2016 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 24.5.2017.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 appeared without any notice having been issued. However, he was also heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent no.2 had wrongly insured husband of respondent no.1/complainant and the complaint was barred by limitation and therefore, claim was not liable to be paid. Both the fora below have passed erroneous orders without looking at the objections fled by the petitioner insurance company.
On the other hand, it was stated by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that in a matter with similar facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2016 in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another has ordered the total insurance amount to be deposited by the insurance company before the District Forum and the same would be released to the complainant by the District Forum without asking for any security. Therefore nothing remains pending in this revision petition as the same may be disposed of by ordering the insurance company to deposit the insurance amount before the District Forum and the same should be released in favour of complainant/respondent no.1 by the District Forum.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that this bench in RP No.2608 of 2016 decided on 10.2.2018, though dismissed the revision petition but left open the dispute between the insurance company and GTFS subject to order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 7732, 7889-7955 of 2016. He stated that in RP Noo.1752 of 2016 and RP No. 122 of 2016 decided on 13.4.2017, this Commission only dismissed the revision petitions without observing anything on the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2 The learned counsel argued that this bench of this Commission has to pass order similar to that passed by the coordinate bench and to support his contentions, he referred to the following cases:
A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 9988) 2 SC C 602 at Paragraph 183
Venkateswara Rice Mill Vs. State of A.P. (1971) 2 SCC 650at paragraph 9
State of Punjab Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.,(2004) 11 SCC 26 at paragraph 339
It was contended that if the revision petition is decided on the condition that the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 should be governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another, SLP No.7732 of 2016, then it will deprive the respondent no.2 from availing any remedy against this order.
I have carefully perused the record and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Initially, in a similar matter in SLP No.7732 of 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.4.2016 had ordered that the insurance company shall deposit 50% of the amount before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same shall be released to the complainant without any security. Later on, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2016, modified its earlier order dated 29.4.2016, by ordering that the complainant need not appear in the matter as the dispute now remains basically between the insurance company and respondent no.2 and insurance company shall deposit the remaining 50% insured amount also with the District Forum and the District Forum shall release this amount to the complainant without any security. This means that Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed payment of 100% amount of insurance to the complainant without any security and his presence also has been dispensed with treating the pending matter as a dispute between the insurance company and respondent no.2.
Once the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been passed in a similar case, no discretion remains with this Commission to take any other view in the matter. The District Forum has already ordered to settle the insurance claim for the insurance amount to the complainant and the order has been upheld by the State Commission. Accordingly, as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred similar matter, the insurance company is directed to deposit the total insurance amount with the District Forum within a period of four weeks and the District Forum is directed to release the same to the complainant/respondent no.1, after due verification of the deposited amount as well as of the complainant. It is further directed that no security will be required for releasing this amount.
It is true that it is not necessary to decide inter-se dispute between the defendants in a suit and claim of the plaintiff is to be decided. From this point of view there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for respondent no.2, but the present revision petition is being decided on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another (supra), and the revision petition is being dismissed as the complainant is entitled to claim as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another (supra). Ultimately, who will be liable to pay this claim, will be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another (supra).
There is no dispute that the decision of the coordinate bench is to be accepted. In fact the decision of the coordinate bench and this bench is same i.e. the revision petition has been dismissed. Any party can challenge the order of this Commission before the Hon'ble Supreme Court if aggrieved.
In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition No.2395 of 2017 is dismissed in the light of the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sugiya Devi and another, SLP ( C) No.7732 of 2016.