UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BALRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.1998 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh, dismissing appeal against order dated 20.11.1996 to a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 90,560 with interest @ 15% p.a. from 1.5.1996 to the respondent/complainant,

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Vehicle bearing registration No. HR-26A-5568 owned by the respondent was insured with the petitioner for a period of one year. During the currency of policy the vehicle met with an accident on 10.5.1995 and was damaged. On being informed of accident, the petitioner appointed Ajay Kumar as preliminary Surveyor. S.K. Bakshi and Company" was "appointed as final Surveyor. They gave their report on 12.9.1995 assessing the damage to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 90,096*which amount was reduced to Rs. 88,137. On claim not being settled, the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner mainly on the grounds that vehicle was not having fitness certificate on the date of accident and petitioner had submitted two bills for purchase of one spare part indicating different amounts. Petitioner filed review application for recalling aforesaid said order dated 19.3.1998, which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 30.9.1998 holding that it did not have power of review under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). Dissatisfied with State Commission's orders, the petitioner filed present revision petition which was dismissed by this Commission by the order dated 14.12.1998. Against that order the petitioner filed SLP(Civil) No. 5571 of 1999 which was disposed of by the Supreme Court by the order dated 23.4.1999 observing that petitioner may move this Commission to point out that order of State Commission declining to review was also the subject matter of dispute before it. Thereafter, present revision petition has been revived.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , while allowing revision, the orders passed by Fora below are set aside and case remanded to the District Forum for complaint being decided afresh on merit in the light of observations made in preceding para.