Case nº Revision Petition No. 1602 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 03/02/2012 in Appeal No. 24/2012 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 02, 2012 (case 1. Amal Sai and Anr. 2. Smt Pancho Vs 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2. Saguja Keshtriya Gramin Bank, Through Branch Manager)

JudgeFor Appellant: Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate and For Respondents: Nemo
PresidentMr. J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member
DefenseConsumer Law
Resolution DateNovember 02, 2012
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


J. M. Malik, Presiding Member

1. Shri Amal Sai and Smt. Pancho are the owners of a tractor with trolly attached. They had taken loan from Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, opposite party No. 2. The above said tractor was insured by United India Insurance Company Limited, opposite party No. 1. The said tractor met with an accident on 26.3.2009 and it was damaged considerably. The complainants claimed damages from the opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 refused to pay the claim on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by opposite party No. 1.

2. The complainants filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service by respondents. The complaint was dismissed. The complainants filed an appeal through registered post to the State Commission, Raipur. They were under the impression that the learned State Commission would send a notice for hearing in their favour. However, no such notice was received.

3. Through this revision petition, they have challenged the order passed by the State Commission dated 3.2.2012.

4. None appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, the Commission received a letter on behalf of the petitioners stating that they were not in a position to appear before this Commission and prayed for engagement of an advocate on their behalf. Consequently, Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that she has sent a letter to the petitioners but she did not receive any response. She argued that she is not assisted by her client. She stated that she even does not have the policy.

5. We have gone through the record. It is apparent that at the time of the accident, its driver did not have the effective and valid driving licence. He was having driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle only. Consequently, the claim filed by the complainants found no favour even with the District Forum or with the State Commission. The order of the State Commission clearly goes to reveal that it had sent the SPC for the date of hearing but none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The State Commission did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed the same.

6. The District Forum in its paras 18 and 19 as per English version mentioned as follows.

18. In the documents exh. A-7, A-8 and A-9 filed on behalf of complainant...

To continue reading

Request your trial