Ummer Kunhi Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT KRISHNA PRASAD BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DIST., KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AT, REGIONAL OFFICE, 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 025. &RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. G.S. MARULAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15605-DB WP No. 35126 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE, A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED:12.09.2024 IN REVISION PETITION NO.1800/2023 BY THE LEARNED NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDDRESSAL COMMISSION PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶25

This writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1800/2023 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.07.2022, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.742/2014 preferred by the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:15605-DB WP No. 35126 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The petitioner had filed a complaint before the

¶30

District Forum, claiming compensation for his vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19/AA-9500, which was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company, and met with an accident on 23.05.2011. The petitioner's claim for damages was repudiated, and therefore, he filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore by the order dated 28.02.2014 in Complaint No.226/2012 allowed the complaint and directed the respondentInsurance Company to pay Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty thousand only) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of litigation expenses.

¶31

This order came to be challenged by the Insurance Company in Appeal No.742/2014 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15605-DB WP No. 35126 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

appeal was filed with delay of 57 days. The appeal was allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside, on the ground that as per the survey report, the Insurance Company was ready to pay an amount of Rs.27,800/-, but the petitioner/complainant did not accept this amount and there was no evidence for suffering the damages of Rs.1,20,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant/petitioner had filed the revision petition. The revision petition had been dismissed only on the ground of delay of 59 days.

¶36

The approach of the National Commission is highly technical. The Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation. There is only one place of sitting i.e., New Delhi, where the National Consumer Disputes Commission holds its sitting. The person from Mangalore has to travel all the way to Delhi to file the Revision Petition and the delay of 59 days was not an enormous or

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15605-DB WP No. 35126 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

exorbitant, which could not have been condoned. We

¶40

therefore, condone the delay of 59 days in filing the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the National Commission and remand the matter back

¶41

to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

¶42

to decide the matter.

¶43

6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed .

¶44

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶46

RR