SHYAM LAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant owned a vehicle bearing No. HP 34B-1865 which he had got insured with the respondent. The said vehicle met with an accident as a result of which, the vehicle was damaged and the diesel being carried in the said tanker also got destroyed. Since the claim lodged by him was not paid, he preferred a consumer complaint being CC No.23 of 2013 before the District Forum at Kullu for redressal of his grievance. Vide order dated 24.4.2014, the District Forum at Kullu, allowed the complaint as far as damage to the tanker was concerned. As regards the reimbursement claimed by the complainant on account of loss of diesel, the following order was passed by the District Forum:-

(2.) The order passed by the District Forum in CC No.23 of 2013 having not been challenged, had become final and binding upon the parties. As a result, a subsequent complaint for reimbursement on account of loss of diesel being carried in the tanker could have been filed before a Forum other than the Consumer Forum at Kullu, including a civil court. Instead of either filing a suit before a civil court or a complaint before a Forum other the District Forum at Kullu, the complainant filed a fresh consumer complaint before the same District Forum which was allowed by the said Forum vide order dated 21.6.2016. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum dated 21.6.2016 allowing reimbursement on account of loss of diesel, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been allowed and the complaint having been dismissed, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the District Forum at Kullu had in the previous complaint being CC No.23 of 2013 declined to grant any relief for reimbursement on account of loss of the diesel and had granted liberty to petitioner/complainant to approach an appropriate forum for the redressal of the said grievance. The appropriate forum could not have been the District Forum at Kullu though it could have a civil court or any other forum other than a consumer forum. The petitioner/complainant, however, chose to approach the District Forum at Kullu despite the previous order passed by the said Commission in CC No.23 of 2013, denying reliefs for such reimbursement to him had become final and binding upon him. The District Forum, Kullu having earlier declined the same relief in CC No.23 of 2013 could not have given the same in the subsequent complaint no. 23 of 2014. The order passed by the District Forum on 21.6.2016 was highly inappropriate and, therefore, was rightly set aside by the State Commission. The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is however, made clear that dismissal of the Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2015 will not come in the way of the complainant approaching a civil court or Forum other than a Consumer Forum, for the redressal of his grievance with respect to the loss of the diesel.