NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. VINITA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 1689/2009, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. which was arrayed as one of the opposite parties, has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent/complainant against the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chindwara in Execution Case No. 50 / 2008, by which order, the District Forum on a consideration of the pleas of the parties has held the execution application to be not maintainable in view of the subsequent developments, in particular, the finding having come in the viscera report about the life assured being under intoxication of alcohol at the time when he met with an accident and on the basis of which insurance company having decided the claim as 'no claim '.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Pramod Dayal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Saxena, Advocate, counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. The order sought to be executed by the complainant was passed by the District Forum on 26.06.2007 in complaint no. 91/2006. The operative part of the order reads as under: -

(3.) MR . Dayal, counsel representing the insurance company would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, least the evidence and material and the subsequent developments which have taken place after the first order dated 26.6.2007 was passed by the District Forum. The basis of his submission is that there was no final adjudication of the controversy by the District Forum in its order dated 26.06.2007 and the entire matter was left open and the question of deciding the claim was left up to the discretion of the petitioner insurance company on a consideration of the entire documents as were referred to in the said order. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / complainant would support the impugned order on the same analogy that once the District Forum had allowed the claim, it was duty bound to enforce the same and any finding in the viscera report could have no relevance. He additionally submits that pursuant to the orders passed by the District Forum, the Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs.7,41,000/ - in the District Forum in the execution proceedings. Mr. Dayal, counsel for the petitioner submits that if such an amount was deposited, it was under protest and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and subject to the outcome of the present petition.