(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, the State Commission) in first appeal No. 540 of 2004, the original complainant has filed the present petition. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in complaint case No. 107 of 1995, by which order the District Consumer Forum had partly allowed the complaint and had directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,43,126 with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 12.5.1995 till the date of actual payment besides a sum of Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. In the appeal, the State Commission has set aside the said order by holding that it was the transporter-respondent No. 2 and not the Insurance Company, who was liable to pay the said amount, thereby exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to make any payment altogether. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed the present petition.
(2.) We have heard Mr. R.S. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent and have considered their respective submissions.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant has assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that the State Commission has allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company on the strength of certain documents i.e. photocopy of the paper Nos. 46-47 containing Clauses 15.16 and 20 of the terms and conditions and on a consideration thereof, the State Commission has passed the impugned order holding that the policy did not cover the peril alleged by the complainant and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant. Learned Counsel submits that the terms and conditions of the said policy were not brought on record either before the District Consumer Forum or the State Commission and the complainant had no opportunity to make his submissions in regard to the veracity, authenticity, intrinsic value and the effect of said clauses of the policy. This was so stated in the application filed on 22.11.2010. After that, we called upon the respondent-Insurance Company to file the terms and conditions of the policy and after seeking several adjournments, the Insurance Company has filed the document claiming it to be the terms and conditions of the policy. The case of the complainant is that he never received these terms and conditions with the cover note or the terms and conditions of the policy at the time of taking the policy or even subsequently. Since the District Consumer Forum decided the question in absence of the said terms and conditions and the State Commission had passed the order on the reading of certain clauses of the terms and conditions of the policy, without being afforded any opportunity to the complainant to have his say in regard to those clauses. We are of the opinion that the order of the State Commission is in violation of the principles of natural justice and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. In our view, it is a fit case where we should intervene and set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remit the appeal to the Board of State; Commission for deciding the same after affording due opportunity to the complainant-petitioner as also to the Insurance Company to have its say based on the said terms and conditions of the policy or/and further material which is relied upon by the parties.