ARBIND KUMAR Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & 4 ORS ; REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ; BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA; DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ; C M D NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01-02-2016, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred as the State Commission) in Revision No. 04 of 2015 by which, the State Commission dismissed the appeal against the order dated 20-05-2013, passed by the District Forum, Samastipur in Misc. Case (Restoration) No.29 of 2011, by which the District Forum had dismissed the restoration petition.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Consumer Complaint No.73 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum, Samastipur, saying that he was running a cycle parts agency with the name Shankar Agency and that he had got his shop-cum-godown insured with the opposite party (OP), National Insurance Company Ltd., for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. There was theft at the insured premises on the night of 16-01-1998, causing a loss of Rs.50,240/- to him. The consumer complaint was filed, seeking directions to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,64,243/- to him including the cost of goods stolen and damage to his business, etc.. The said complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 25-05-2011 of the District Forum, in which it is recorded that the complainant had been absenting from the proceedings regularly, whereas the learned counsel for the OP insurance company was present. The complaint was dismissed for lack of 'pairvi' on the part of the complainant.

(3.) The complainant filed miscellaneous application No.29 of 2011, seeking restoration of his consumer complaint before the District Forum. However, the said restoration application was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 20-05-2013. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of Appeal No.04 of 2015 before the State Commission. Vide impugned order, the State Commission found that the restoration case had been rightly dismissed by the District Forum, as it was not maintainable before them in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr., 2011 9 SCC 541. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.