H.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA-9.

F.A. No. 146 of 2009

Decided on 3.7.2009.



M/s Geeta Garments Upper Bazar, Solan

through its Prop. Smt. Chander Mohini.

.....Appellant.

Versus



The United India Insurance Company

Divisional Officer Timber House

Cart Road, Shimla, H.P.

…..Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting ?



For the Appellant. Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate.



For the Respondent. Mr. Harish Bahl, Advocate

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.



1. Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant which is the sole proprietory concern of Smt. Chander Mohini was insured under a valid policy of insurance on 13.11.1999, when fire broke out in the area where shop was existing. As a result of it the entire stock as well as the insured property were destroyed. According to the appellant it was a case of total loss.



2. At the time of hearing it was admitted that sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid by the respondent to the appellant on 8.5.2000. This payment was made in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant according to Sh. Bahl, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, whereas this plea of Sh. Bahl was seriously contested on behalf of the appellant. Per learned counsel it was under compelling reasons that the amount was received by his client and in fact according to him if she had not received this amount she would have suffered further. As such after having received the amount she

lodged a written protest. Thus according to him the receipt of Rs. 1,80,000/- was not of her free will or violation. This position is further strengthened by her subsequent conduct when she filed complaint No. 160/2001, before District Forum, Shimla camp at Solan. It came up for consideration on 12.10.2001 (12.x.2kl) when following order was passed.

“ 12.x.2kl.

Present : Mr. Raman Khurana, Adv. for comp.

Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Adv. for the OP.



In view of the statement of the ld. counsel for the complainant, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. Be consigned to R.R.

sd

sd President sd

Member Member. ”



3. Now the dispute starts. According to the learned counsel for the appellant his client called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator since there existed dispute regarding the quantum of compensation. He addressed letters to this effect to the respondent. These were not attended to by the respondent per learned counsel for the appellant. As a result of inaction on the part of the respondent, Complaint No. 155/2004 was filed by the appellant on 15.10.2004 before the District Forum, Solan. It has been dismissed, hence this appeal.



4. In the aforesaid background it was urged on behalf of the appellant that complaint No. 160/2001 was withdrawn with a view to have recourse under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the face of the Arbitration clause in the Insurance Policy. And because action was not taken by the respondent, this compelled the appellant to file the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen according to the learned counsel for the appellant. As such per him District Forum below was not justified in dismissing the complaint without having gone into its merits.



5. This submission in the face of it appears to be innocuous, but when examined in the face of the above admitted facts as well as on legal basis with reference to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its hollowness is exposed.



6. Reason being that in case appellant felt that the matter needs to be gone into under the provisions of Act, 1996 (supra), then why no steps were initiated by her on the failure of the respondent to have appointed Arbitrator. Because nothing either stopped and or prevented the appellant to have approached the Court under Section 11 of the said Act. Admittedly no such action was initiated by her. Therefore, submission urged on behalf of the appellant that earlier complaint was withdrawn with a view to take recourse under the Act of 1996 is purely an afterthought. In addition to this the complaint was withdrawn un-conditionally as is evident from the order dated 12.10.2001, extracted hereinabove. In these circumstances one complaint after the other in our opinion is not maintainable. Reason being that quietus has to be given to the litigation at some stage or the other. And if the submission urged on behalf of the appellant is taken to its logical end, it will allow a litigant to indulge into court hunting which is not only contrary to law, but is also opposed to public policy.
7. No other point was urged.

8. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case we find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



9. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.



(Justice Arun Kumar Goel)Retd.

President



(Saroj Sharma)

Member



(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member



Suneera

3.7.2009