NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4611/2009

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESHWARI MAJOR - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. MOHAN LAW CO.

29 Sep 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 4611 OF 2009

(Against the Order dated 13/08/2009 in Appeal No. 2530/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)

1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through its Divisional Manager, D.O. No. 10, No. 79, Dwarka II Floor, Uttamar Gandhi Salai Chennai	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. RAJESHWARI MAJOR Dommasandra Village, Basaweshwaranagar, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk Bangalore Rural	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate for M/S. MOHAN LAW CO., Advocate

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 29 Sep 2010

ORDER

Delay of 13 days in filing revision petition is condoned subject to just exceptions. Challenge in this revision by the opposite party-Insurance Company is to the order dated 13.8.2009 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing appeal against the order dated 30.4.2009 of a District Forum whereby Insurance Company was directed to reimburse amount of Rs.3,43,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. and pay cost of -2- Rs.5,000/-to the respondent/complainant. Order of the District Forum would show that Oriental Insurance Company was arrayed as opposite party through its Divisional Office at Chennai and Branch Office at Bangalore; Branch Office impleaded as opposite party No.2 was served with the notice sent by registered A.D. post and as the notice sent through registered A.D. post to the Divisional Office arrayed as opposite party No.1 was not received back even after 52 days of the despatch, raising presumption of service the Divisional Office was proceeded ex-parte and award was made on the basis of unrebutted evidence adduced by the respondent before the Forum. Petitioner has filed the copy of Survey report dated 20.11.2006 which would show that the loss assessed by the surveyor to the vehicle was Rs.67,700/-. Contention advanced by Shri Aggarwal is that the award passed by the District Forum and affirmed by State Commission is of much more amount than as assessed by the surveyor and the Divisional Office of the petitioner had not received the notice in the complaint from the District Forum. To be noted that it is denied in revision petition that the notice sent by registered post was not received by the Branch Office which was held to be served with the notice by the District Forum and on whose behalf no one had -3- appeared before the Forum. Survey report which was not before the District Forum cannot be looked into. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the award passed by the fora below based on the unrebutted evidence before the District Forum. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

......................J

K.S. GUPTA

PRESIDING MEMBER