w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ajay Gupta v/s Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited


Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [Active] CIN = L67200MH1972GOI016133

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [Active] CIN = U67200MH1972GOI016133

Company & Directors' Information:- CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U66030TN2001PLC047977

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100MH2005PTC154038

Company & Directors' Information:- M R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051324

Company & Directors' Information:- AJAY (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = U18102RJ1996PLC011678

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC077255

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1974PTC007339

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55204DL1954PTC002390

Company & Directors' Information:- S K GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1973PTC016294

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. GUPTA AND COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052138

Company & Directors' Information:- B R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL2000PTC107343

Company & Directors' Information:- T N GUPTA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U02005WB1951PTC020141

Company & Directors' Information:- AJAY AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01122DL1997PTC089125

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U24239DL1999PTC102248

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P GUPTA AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016661

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20211UP1975PTC004078

Company & Directors' Information:- M K GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1979PTC009517

Company & Directors' Information:- A J GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210UP1980PTC004986

Company & Directors' Information:- I.N. INSURANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67200DL1994PTC062554

Company & Directors' Information:- D. R. GUPTA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1944PTC000794

Company & Directors' Information:- INSURANCE OF INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67200WB1936PLC008634

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26932RJ1972PTC001459

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1926PTC001261

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1946PLC007742

    Revision Petition No. 921 of 2020

    Decided On, 15 October 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Shubham Bhalla, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------



Judgment Text

Oral:This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission 14.08.2020 whereby the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner was remitted back to the District Forum to decide the same afresh with a speaking and intelligible order after taking into consideration the report of the forensic laboratory which the respondent had filed before the District Forum and which had not been adverted to in the order of the District Forum.2. The petitioner owned a vehicle which he had got insured with the respondent for a sum insured of Rs.16 lakhs. The case of the complainant is that the said vehicle met with an accident on 06.05.2017 in the area of Dhariwal, Gurdaspur. Mr. Vaibhav Gehrana was appointed as a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.9,11,490/-.3. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the respondent insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 14.08.2020 the State Commission took note of the forensic report dated 25.07.2017 which the insurer had obtained and had filed along-with the affidavit of the director of the forensic lab. The State Commission was of the view that there were several suspicious factors in the case of the complainant which had not been considered by the District Forum.4. Particular reference was made to the omission to consider the report of the forensic lab dated 25.07.2017. The State Commission, therefore, remitted the matter back to the District Forum to decide the same afresh after considering the evidence available on record especially the report of the forensic laboratory Ex. OP-3.5. The State Commission while remitting the matter back to the District Forum felt that the order passed by the District Forum did not contain adequate reasons and, therefore, directed issuance of a notice to the President and Member of the District Forum to explain as to why the impugned order had been passed in a casual manner and why action should not be taken against them in accordance with law.6. The apprehension of the petitioner is that considering the view expressed by the State Commission his complaint is likely to be dismissed by the District Forum and this was more so considering the show cause notice which the State Commission issued to the President and the Member of the District Forum. In my opinion, the apprehension is not justified since the District Forum will be required to consider not only the forensic report but the entire record including the evidence produced by the petitioner/complainant. It is only on due consideration of the entire record that the District Forum will be deciding the complaint afresh by way of a speaking order.7. As far as the administrative action initiated against the President and Member of the District Forum is concerned it is for the concerned President and Member of the District Forum, if they feel aggrieved from the above-referred direction of the State Commission to avail such remedy as may be open to them in law. However, it would not be correct to assume that the District Forum will be deciding against the petitioner/complainant only because of the State Commission having directed issuance of a show cause notice to its President and Member.8. For the reasons stated hereinabove the revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the obs

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ervations made by the State Commission in the impugned order shall not effect or influence the decision of the District Forum, in any manner, and the said Forum shall decide the complaint afresh on merits on the basis of the material available on record which, of course, would include the report of the forensic laboratory. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
O R