UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M/S PAYARELAL NIRNAJAN LAL

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 730 · Decided: 27-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 730 
A 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
t 
v. 
M/S PAYARELAL NIRNAJAN LAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 1329 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 27, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection - Insurance - Complaint by 
c respondent-insured dismissed by State Consumer 
Commission - Appeal by respondent before National 
Commission - No one appeared on behalf of appellant when 
the matter was called - National Commission decided the 
appeal ex-parte partially allowing the claim of respondent -
·' 
D Appellant filed application for setting aside the ex-parte order 
' 
taking the plea that its earlier counsel had returned the briefs 
and did not inform about the date of hearing - Application 
rejected by National Commission - Justification of- Held: Not 
justified, as notice had been served on the earlier counsel and 
E appellant had no knowledge about listing of the case - Ex-
parte order of National Commission set aside - Direction to 
National Commission, to dispose of the appeal afresh on 
merits. 
• 
F 
The complaint filed by respondent-insured was 
dismissed by the State Consumer Commission. 
Respondent filed appeal before the National Commission. 
No one appeared on behalf of appellant when the matter 
was called. The National Commission decided the appeal 
ex-parte partially allowing the claim of respondent. 
G 
Appellant filed application before the National 
Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order taking the 
plea that its earlier counsel had returned the briefs and 
did not inform about the date of hearing. The application 
H 
730 
' 
"'\ 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PAYARELAL 
731 
NIRNAJAN LAL 
J 
was rejected by the National Commission. Hence the 
A 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of the undisputed factual position that 
B 
the notice had been served on the earlier counsel, 
obviously he was to appear when the matter was taken 
-I 
up by National Commission. But the briefs had been 
returned by the earlier counsel to the appellant-company. 
Therefore, the appellant had no knowledge about the 
listing of the case. It is not in dispute that the earlier c 
counsel had not informed the appellant-company about 
the date of hearing because he had returned the briefs. 
In the peculiar circumstances, the impugned order of the 
National Commission is set aside and the First Appeal 
/; 
is restored for disposal on merits afresh. Let the parties 
D 
appear before the National Commission without further 
notice so that a date of hearing can be fixed by the 
National Commission. [Paras 5 and 6] [734-B-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
E 
1329 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2006 of the 
_,.,_ 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
• 
Delhi in Misc. Application No. 69 of 2006. 
F 
A.K. Deo, Rajesh Dwivedi and Ashok K. Mahajan for the 
Petitioner. 
Shobha and J.B. Prakash for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
-J 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 3-s.C.R. 
Delhi, (in short 'National Commission') refusing to accept the 
prayer made by the present appellant to set aside the ex parte 
order dated 30.11.2005. 
3. Background facts, as projected by the appellant, are as 
follows: 
The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'insured') 
gave a cheque for Rs.1451/- dated 8.10.86 to one 
Development Officer of the appellant-Company for obtaining 
Marine (Inland Transit Policy) for Rs.5,00,000/- for incoming 
goods from various States. On 9.10.1986 an oil tanker of the 
respondent-insured bearing No.RND-9259 coming from District 
Mehsana, Gujarat, met with an accident near Pali, Rajasthan. 
On 11.10.1986 the insured informed the appellant about the 
accident of its oil tanker. The cheque in question was received 
in the Divisional Office of the appellant on 13.10.1986 without 
any cover note. On 19.1.1987 respondent submitted claim bill 
to the appellant claiming certain amount in respect of the 
accident of its oil tanker. On 23.3.1993 the claim was rejected 
by the appellant informing the respondent as follows: 
"1. Your cheque dated 8.10.96 Rs.1451/- against the 
premium of the policy of insurance proposed to be issued 
reached our office on 13.10.86 without a cover note in 
absence where of a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.