ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. CITIZEN ROADLINES CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. filed a complaint 414/92 which was decreed vide ex-parte order of this Commission dated 29.9.93. The present applicant, who is concerned with the opposite party in the aforesaid complaint, came to know about the ex-parte order on 8.10.93 and he made an application through Mr. R. S. Sharma, Advocate for setting-aside the ex-parte order. This Commission is stated to have admitted the aforesaid application for setting-aside the exparte proceedings subject to the applicant furnishing the bank guarantee of the decretal amount. Mr. R. S. Sharma however, did not inform the applicant about the order and the application was, accordingly, dismissed on 25.3.94. Again the applicant came to know about the dismissal of his application on 2.5.94 when he received copy of the order passed by this Commission. He then engaged one Maharaj Krishan, Advocate for making a fresh application. The applicant then forgot to enquire about the progress of the matter from his newly appointed advocate till he came to know that warrants of arrest had been issued against him. He then tried to contact Mr. Maharaj Krishan and came to know that the said advocate had since died. In the present application the applicant has assailed the ex-parte order dated 29.9.93.

(2.) After going through the application and hearing Mr. H. P. Saraf we find that the application has no merit. The ex-parte order dated 29.9.93 has been assailed on two main grounds. Firstly, that the insurance company was not a 'consumer' because it had acquired rights only under the letter of subrogation and secondly, the claim had become barred by limitation. With regard to the first objection it has been laid-down by the National Commission in Kishan Roadways V/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.,1996 2 CPR 169, that complaint under the Consumer Protection Act can be filed by the Insurance Company on the basis of letter of subrogation especially when the insured is also joined. Reference in the said decision has been given to earlier decisions on the point by the National Commission. With regard to the second plea it has been laid-down in State of Punjab V/s. Gurdev Singh, 1991 4 SCC 1 that even a void order is required to be challenged and declared to be so. In para 10 of the judgment it was observed as follows : "it will be clear from these principles, the party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the Court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the Court cannot give the declaration sought for".

(3.) For these reasons there is no merit in this application which is therefore, dismissed. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties.