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



Pyar Singh v/s Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN1938GOI000108

Company & Directors' Information:- THE RAJASTHAN INSURANCE CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67200WB1937PLC006775

    Revision Petition No. 1861 of 2012

    Decided On, 09 September 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

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

    For the Petitioner: Sanjeev Kumar Varma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Naveen Kumar, Shiv Vyas, Advocates.



Judgment Text


Oral:

This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 09.02.2012 whereby the consumer complaint filed by R-1 was dismissed. A consumer complaint alleging negligence by R-2 in the treatment of the wife of the complainant and seeking compensation for the alleged negligence was filed before the District Forum. The complaint was instituted only against R-2. However, later on the Insurance Company was impleaded as a party to the consumer complaint on an application filed by it before the District Forum.

2. The District Forum vide its order dated 15.06.2009 allowed the consumer complaint against the Insurance Company as well as against R-2. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Form, the insurer as well as the R-2 Dr. Raj Girish approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. The appeal filed by R-2 Dr. Raj Girish was dismissed on account of his having failed to deposit the security amount required under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the appeal filed by the insurer was allowed by the State Commission which altogether dismissed the consumer complaint instead of dismissing only against the insurer despite the fact that the appeal filed by Dr. Raj Girish had already been dismissed for want of deposit of the security amount.

3. The Ld. counsel for the complainant/petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner will not enforce the order passed by the District Forum against the insurer and will seek execution of the said order only against R-2 Dr. Raj Girish whose appeal had been dismissed for want of deposit of the security amount. The Ld. counsel for the insurer states that if the complainant does not enforce the order of the District Forum against the insurer he will withdraw the appeal which the insurer had filed before the State Commission.

4. In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The order passed by the District Forum in the consumer complaint will be enforceable only ag

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ainst R-2 Dr. Raj Girish and will not be enforceable against R-1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (ii) The appeal which the insurer had filed before the State Commission stands withdrawn. No order as to costs.
O R