HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.16820 of 2000 Date: 03-12-2010 Between The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager, Hyderabad … Petitioner and K.Chinna and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.16820 of 2000 Order: Aggrieved by the order dated 05-02-2000 in C.D.No.405 of 1998 passed by the President, District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed this writ petition seeking the relief of Mandamus declaring that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam is contrary to law and weight of evidence and contrary to the agreement entered into by the 2nd respondent with the petitioner-Insurance Company. 2. The facts relating to this writ petition are that the wife of late Simhachalam filed C.D.No.405 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of the death of her husband in an accident while driving the lorry. As per the agreement of the policy issued by the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the insured person in case he died under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., filed this writ petition seeking to declare the same as contrary to law. 3. Admittedly, the deceased Simhachalam, husband of the complainant, died in a motor vehicle accident on 21-12-1997 while he was driving the lorry bearing No.ATS-2799. The complainant, wife of the deceased, ought to have approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But, she filed C.D., before the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner-Insurance Company ought to have filed an appeal against the impugned order only before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, but it has chosen to file this writ petition before this Court to declare the impugned order as contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company submitted that by the date of filing of an appeal against the impugned order, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad was not functioning since the Chairman of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was not yet appointed. Therefore, they have filed this writ petition questioning the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the 1st respondent-complainant claiming compensation for the death of her husband, who died in a motor vehicle accident, the wife of the deceased ought to have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further contended that as per the terms of the Policy, the petitioner-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation since the deceased died under influence of alcohol. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant submitted that the petitioner-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the deceased had Policy under Abhaya Group Personal Accident Policy against Andhra Bank. 7. At paragraph 7 of the order the District Consumer Forum observed that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st respondent-Andhra Bank, directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay insurance amount. 8. As seen from the entire record, the petitioner first approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and filed appeal in F.A.(SR).No.2150 of 2000 against the impugned order. Therefore, an appeal by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam is not maintainable in this Court. 9. The petitioner-Insurance Company is, therefore, directed to approach the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission having been given F.A.(SR).No.2150 of 2000, can entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and may dispose of the same as early as possible since the alleged accident took place in the year 1997. 10. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO 03rd December, 2010. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.16820 of 2000 03rd December, 2010.