SATBIR SINGH vs Reliance General Insurance Company

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 796/12 - Satbir Vs. Reliance General Ins. Co. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal of the complainant, order of District forum allowing complaint was also set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner got his Bolero HR 39 A 9361 insured from OP/respondent for a period of one year from 8.5.2009 to 7.5.2010. On 1.11.2009, vehicle was snatched by some culprits and FIR was lodged and intimation was also given to OP. Claim was submitted to OP, but claim was repudiated by letter dated 2 8.5.2010. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/respondent resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was insured as private car but was used for hire and reward at the time of accident and was constantly being used for commercial purposes. Claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint on non standard basis and directed OP to pay Rs.3,07,500/ along with 7% p.a. interest Petitioner filed appeal before learned State Commission for enhancement of compensation and learned State Commission vide impugned order while dismissing appeal set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint 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 committed error in dismissing complaint on the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation even without any cross appeal from respondent; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that State Commission had power to dismiss complaint even without cross appeal and order passed by State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that learned District Forum allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.3,07,500/ whereas complainant claimed Rs.4,10,000/ in the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum complainant filed appeal before State Commission for enhancement and learned State Commission vide impugned order while dismissing appeal, set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint, though, no appeal was filed by OP/respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any appeal or cross objections State Commission had no power to dismiss complaint while dismissing appeal for enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as both the parties were present before learned State Commission, learned State Commission had power to dismiss complaint even without appeal on behalf of respondent. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on (2000) 3 SCC 607 - Dilip Vs. Mohd. Azizul Haq & Anr. in which it was held that during pendency of appeal, if any, amendment is made in the Rent Control Act and protection is given to the tenant, the tenant is entitled to protection given by amendment. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case appeal filed by the tenant was pending before the Court and he was extended benefits on the basis of amendment in Rent Control Act. On the other hand, in the case in hand, appeal was filed only by the complainant for enhancement of compensation and no appeal was filed by OP for setting aside order of District Forum.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on (1999) 8 SCC 229 - Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. BasantiDevi & Anr. in which it was held that Appellate Court may pass any order as the case may require. In this case, Hon ''ble Apex Court while exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution granted relief to the complainant. This citation is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as State Commission had no power to exercise powers conferred on Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent could not place any citation depicting that once order has been passed against the OP that can be set aside by the Appellate Court without preferring appeal by the OP. After filing appeal for enhancement of compensation petitioner had every right to withdraw the appeal or get it dismissed as not pressed and in such circumstances, State Commission had no power to dismiss the complaint in appeal filed by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 24.8.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 796 of 2012 - Satbir Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. & Anr. is set aside and order of District Forum allowing complaint partly is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.