Case nº Revision Petition No. 2025 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 30/12/2009 in Appeal No. 915/2002 of the State Commission Haryana) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 16, 2010 (case 1. Avedesh Mittal and Ors. 2. Rajnish Mittal 3. Pradeep Mittal 4. Praveen Mittal 5. A. Smt. Sushma Mittal 6. B. Smt. Ila Mittal 7. C. Shri Gaurav Mittal Vs 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2. Bank of India)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr.D.K. Thakur, Advocate for M/S. Neo Juris, Advocate and For Respondents: Nemo
PresidentMr. Ashok Bhan ,President and Mrs. Vineeta Rai ,Member
Resolution DateJuly 16, 2010
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Delay of 13 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

LRs are taken on record.

Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum.

Complainants planted popular trees in their respective fields with the help of Vimco company in the year 1990. Vimco company and the respondent bank had jointly taken a Master Policy for Plantation of Trees. It is alleged that in the year 1995, from 10.8.1995 to 14.8.1995, there were heavy rains and storm and flood in the area, due to which, the said plants were damaged. Petitioners filed their respective claims with the insurance company, which were not settled on the ground that there was no relationship of consumer and service-provider between the petitioners and the insurance company.

Being aggrieved, petitioners filed complaints before the District Forum. District Forum, vide its order dated 19.3.2002 dismissed the complaints, aggrieved against which petitioners filed a composite appeal before the State Commission. State Commission dismissed the appeal on four grounds:

  1. the damage, if any, was caused in 1995 and the complaints were filed on 7.8.1999, which were barred by limitation;

  2. the petitioners had failed to prove that there were heavy rains or flood in the area concerned in the year 1995;

  3. there was no relationship of consumer and service-provider between the petitioners and the insurance company. Relationship, if any, was with the Vimco company or the respondent bank. That the petitioners had never paid any premium to the respondent insurance company;

  4. composite appeal against order passed in several complaints by the District Forum was not maintainable.

We leave the question, as to whether composite appeal was maintainable, open for future consideration. However, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT