Case: National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dinesh

Leave granted We have heard learned for the parties. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.1999 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in complaint No. C/228/1997 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5, 38, 500/- with interest at the rate of 15% with effect from 1.4.1996 till the date of payment, the appellant National Insurance Co. Limited filed first appeal No. 59 of 2000 under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said appeal was summarily dismissed by a cryptic and unreasoned order which reads as follows : "Delay condoned. We have gone through the records of the case. We are disinclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The appeal is dismissed." Hence this appeal. In the order passed on 18th September, 2000 this Court while issuing notice to the respondent took note of the contention raised by the learned Counsel of the appellant that under the proviso to Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 it is open to the Insurance Company to dispute the correctness of the estimates of loss as made by the Surveyor and that the State Commission was wrong in directing the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of Rs. 5, 38, 500/- as estimated by the Surveyor whereas the Insurance Company has accepted only a sum of Rs. 4, 13, 500/-. This Court noticed that there is no discussion on this aspect of the matter in the order of the National Commission and issued show cause why the case should not be remanded to the National Commission for a decision on the question. On perusal of the orders passed by the State Commission and the National Commission and on consideration of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the parties it is our considered view that the National Commission while disposing of the first appeal filed under Section 21 of the Act should have considered the question as noted above raised on behalf of the appellant and should have passed a reasoned order. Thus the order under challenge is not sustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for fresh disposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]Thus the order under challenge is not sustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for fresh disposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with the lawOn perusal of the orders passed by the State Commission and the National Commission and on consideration of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the parties it is our considered view that the National Commission while disposing of the first appeal filed under Section 21 of the Act should have considered the question as noted above raised on behalf of the appellant and should have passed a reasoned order.