APPEAL NO: 217/2008


Surjeet Singh

r/o Village Sare Khurd,

Teh. Tijara Distt. Alwar

Complainant-appellant


Vs.


1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

through Br.Manager, Bhiwari, Alwar.

2. Alwar Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank

Br. Tijara Distt. Alwar

through Br. Secretary.

Opposite parties-respondents


Date of judgment 8.7.2009


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethia-Member


Mr. J.P.Garg counsel for the appellant

Mr.Rajeev Sharma counsel for respondent no.1

None present for respondent no.2


BY THE STATE COMMISSION


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against order dated 6.12.07 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in proceedings u/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 bearing case no. 76/05 by which application filed by the complainant was rejected but

2


directions were given by the District Forum in the manner that the claim which was settled by the respondents for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was not justified and it should have been settled for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-.


2. It may be stated here that prior to filing of the application u/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 the complainant appellant had filed a complaint bearing no. 489/04 against the respondents before the District Forum, Alwar inter alia stating that his truck no. RJ 02 G 5665 was got insured for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the respondent insurance company for the period 8.1.02 to 7.1.03 and that truck was stolen away in the intervening night of 17/18.1.02 and that complaint was disposed off by the District Forum through order dated 20.5.05 after taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondents in the manner that the respondent insurance company was directed to settle the claim of the complainant appellant and thereafter the respondent insurance company had settled the claim of the complainant appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,58,322/- and a cheque was issued on 25.6.07 in favour of the complainant appellant and since according to the complainant appellant that was not the compliance of the impugned order dated 20.5.05 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in complaint no. 489/04, therefore, the complainant had filed an application u/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 bearing no. 76/05 before the District Forum and that application was decided by the District Forum through order dated 6.12.07 as stated above inter alia holding that since the vehicle in question was insured for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, therefore, this amount must have been paid by the respondent insurance company and since that was not paid and since in order dated 20.5.05 which was passed by the District Forum,Alwar in complaint no. 489/04, no amount was mentioned, therefore, the

3


District Forum had come to the conclusion that there was no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents but the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was just and proper in place of Rs.1,58,322/-.


3. Aggrieved from the said order dated 6.12.07 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in case no. 76/05, this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.


4. In our considered opinion so far as the dismissal of application u/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 by the District Forum, Alwar through order dated 6.12.07 is concerned, that was rightly dismissed as no question of initiating contempt proceedings arises as in the earlier order dated 20.5.05 no amount was mentioned by the District Forum,Alwar but if the complainant appellant feels that in case of theft the full amount for which the vehicle was insured should have been paid by the respondent insurance company, that would give a fresh cause of action to the complainant appellant and for that the complainant appellant could file a fresh complaint but that order could not be passed in proceedings u/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986.


5. For the reasons stated above the appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed . However, liberty is given to the complainant appellant to file a fresh complaint for claiming the rest amount if he feels so against the Insurance Company and the period which was spent before the District Forum and the State Commission is exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act.



Member President