CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 1501 OF 2008 Date of filing : 01/12/2008

@ MISC. APPL. NOS. 2114 & 2115 OF 2008 Date of order : 23/06/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 54 OF 2008

ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE



The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Union Co-op. Insurance Bldg.

5th floor, 23, Sir P.M. Road, Fort,

Mumbai – 400 001. … Appellant/org. O.P.

V/s.

1. M/s.Krishna Enterprises

Prop.Shri Tukaram nagojiraj Shelke

CC – Shri Prakash B. Nazer

Gala No.39, Shri Siddhivinayak

Premises Market, Sector-10,

Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400 708. … Respondent/org. complainant

2. The Life Line Global Ltd.

Coral Crest, 3rd floor,

Sector-23, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.

3. Shri Harish Madan

Managing Director

The Life Line Global Ltd.

Coral Crest, 3rd floor,

Sector-23, Nerul, Navi Mumbai. … Respondents


Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for the appellant.

None for respondents.

- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate present for the appellant. He does not want to press appeal against respondent Nos.2&3. Hence appeal stands dismissed as against respondent No.2/ The Life Line Global Ltd. and respondent No.3/ Shri Harish Madan, Managing Director, The Life Line Global Ltd. Appeal to proceed only against respondent No.1/M/s.Krishna Enterprises. Order accordingly.

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 27/06/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.54/2008 M/s.Krishna Enterprises V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by Addl. District Consumer Forum Thane (‘Forum below’ in short).

Respondent No.1/org. complainant had taken ‘Standard fire and special perils policy’ from appellant/org. O.P. Due to fire occurred on 03/04/2007 he had suffered a loss to the extent of Rs.3,40,100/-. Insurance claim was made, but the Insurance Company did not take any action. Feeling aggrieved thereby, consumer complaint was filed. It decided ex-parte as per the impugned order/award. It is alleged by the appellant that it came to know about the award passed only after notice of execution was received by them. They had not received copy of impugned award after it was passed. Therefore, it obtained certified copy and filed appeal with application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Delay from the date of impugned award is calculated of 80 days. However, from the date of knowledge, period is much less.

Respondent No.1 against whom this appeal is preferred remained absent though served. We heard Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for the appellant. Perused the record.

The delay being unintentional and satisfactorily explained, we allow application No.2114/2008 for condonation of delay. Said application stands disposed of accordingly.

Coming to the merit of the case, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant by Advocate Shri Vidyarthi that Forum below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since policy was taken and issued by its Branch Office at Fort area, Mumbai. This issue raised is a technical one. On the ground of propriety, whatever is submitted by Advocate Mr.Vidyarthi appears proper. Even within the area of jurisdiction of Forum below there is branch office of Insurance Company. It would have been proper on their part to appear and then make proper submissions before the Forum below. Hence, we find this ground of attack based upon territorial jurisdiction of Forum below, is devoid of any substance.

Coming to the other ground as to alleged liability and the proof thereof, it is a fit case for remand since considering the nature of claim, it would be proper if the decision comes on merits after giving opportunity to the parties to raise proper pleadings and lead evidence. Hence, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

-: ORDER :-

1. Misc. Appl. No.2114/2008 for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.

2. Appeal is allowed. Impugned order/award dated 27/06/2008 stands set aside.

3. Matter is remitted back to Forum below, which shall give proper opportunity to both the sides to raise appropriate pleadings and then to lead evidence as per provisions of Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and then settle the dispute according to law.

4. Appellant to bear its own cost and pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this appeal to respondent No.1/org. complainant.

5. Appeal stands dismissed as against Respondent Nos.2&3.

6. Misc. Appl. No.2115/2008, which is for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.

7. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S.R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member