New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Madhusudan Pramanik & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-1, New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 19.7.2016 passed in First Appeal No.A/791/2015 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (For short, State Commission' ) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 26.5.2015 passed by the District Forum in CC No.10/2015 has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that brother of respondent no.1/complainant, Shri Madan Pramanik (since deceased) had taken an insurance policy styled, "Janta Personal Accident Policy" for sum insured of Rs.1,00,000. On 31.12.2012, complainant's brother died in a road accident. The insurance claim was filed by the complainant /respondent no.1 which was not settled by the OPs. Hence, the case was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 26.5.2015 allowed the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. A/791/2015 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2016.

Hence, the present revision petition.

The matter was taken up on 13.7.2017 when the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 were heard. However, respondent no.2 was not present on that date. After hearing, the following order was passed on 13.7.2017:

"Learned proxy counsel for the respondent has filed an authorization letter from the main counsel and states that in a similar matter, New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sugiya Devi and another, Special Leave to Appeal ( C) No.7732/2016 decided on 25.11.2016, Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order that 100% amount should be deposited by the insurance company and the same may be released to the complainant as the matter between petitioner and respondent no.2 remains pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 50% amount was ordered to be deposited vide order dated 22.9.2016. No proof of deposit has been filed so far. However, the remaining 50% amount should also be deposited by the insurance company within a period of four weeks with the District Forum so that 100% amount stands deposited with the District Forum. The District Forum shall release this total amount (100%) to the complainant/respondent no.1 after due verification of the quantum of amount as well as of the complainant. Complainant to approach the District Forum after the amount is deposited with the District Forum.

The matter between petitioner and respondent no.2 shall be governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the similar matter mentioned above.

List the matter on 16.11.2017 in the category of directions."

It is clear that the next date i.e. 16.11.2017 was given to the insurance company to report compliance. However, the matter came up on 12.9.2018 and on this date, learned counsel for respondent no.2 was also present. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has already complied with the order dated 13.7.2017 passed by this Commission and he has filed the proof of compliance. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 requested that he will be filing the written submissions in the matter and the same may be taken on record. Accordingly, respondent no.2 filed written submissions which has been perused.

In the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for respondent no.2, it is stated 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. It is mentioned that in RP No.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 650 at paragraph 9

State of Punjab Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26 at paragraph 339

It has been 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.

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.

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. Accordingly, the final order dated 13.7.2017 was passed in the matter and the insurance company was asked to file compliance report. The insurance company has already filed the compliance report. Accordingly, the order dated 13.7.2017 passed in the RP No. 2656 of 2016 is confirmed.