JASBIR SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 2329/2006 dated 30.04.2012.

(2.) According to the Petitioner/Complainant, he and his cousin Kashmir Singh are the owners of a combine harvester with Registration No. PB-58-A-3214. Both are drivers as well as owners of the said combine which was got insured from the Respondent/Opposite Party vide Cover Note No. 127410 from 10.04.2004 to 09.04.2005. It was stated that according to the said insurance policy, Respondent would be responsible for any happening/accident caused to the owner, its driver and other persons at the time of working of the combine. On 27.05 2004, around 10:30 am, the Petitioner and his father alongwith some others were operating the said combine for threshing Sun-flower and accidently the left foot of the Petitioner slipped and fell on the berma of the combine and got cut.The Petitioner was brought in the Moonga Hospital, Mahesh Nagar wherein Dr. Tarsen Moonga operated upon the Petitioner and finding no other way, amputated his left foot. The Petitioner has become permanently disabled due to injury. The Petitioner and his father made numerous requests to the Respondent to settle the claim but to no effect. Hence, Complaint No. 329 / 2004 was filed by the Petitioner in District Forum, Ambala alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Respondent by filing written statement raising objections and denying the averments of the Petitioner. The Respondent submitted that the present Revision Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner had withdrawn Complaint Case No. 329 of 2004 filed before the District Forum by giving statement before the State Commission.Once the Petitioner has withdrawn the Complaint, there is no locus to challenge the order passed by the State Commission.The Bar Council vide resolution dated 06.01.2013 and after going through the Complaint and comments of the Advocate has resolved that there being no substance in the Complaint, the same is dismissed.On merits also, the Petitioner Jasbir Singh was not covered under the Policy.Only Kashmir Singh, driver was covered for personal accident to the extent of Rs.2 lacs only.The Petitioner was neither covered by the Policy nor was a third party, hence the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to the Petitioner as per terms and condition of the Policy.The personal accident premium for Kashmir Singh was not only reflected in the Policy but also in the Proposal Form.