Dismissed

S. Nageswar, v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Telangana HC17 Feb 2012WP/4238/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the State Commission's order dismissing an appeal against an insurance company. Relying on the principle of alternative remedy, the Court held it should not interfere as revision lies to the National Commission, granting liberty to approach that body instead.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the W.P.M.P were dismissed; the petitioner is given liberty to approach the National Commission. No order as to costs.

S. Nageswar, Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.4238 of 2012

Dated:17.02.2012

Between:

S.Nageswar. And

Petitioner

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.4238 of 2012

¶13

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶14

The petitioner is the owner of car bearing No.AP 21 TV 0113. He obtained motor vehicle insurance from the respondent. The car met with an accident on 31.08.2007. The surveyor of the respondent opined that the damaged car is totally damaged, and the respondent allegedly promised to pay the entire cost of the vehicle. The petitioner’s claim was, however, rejected on 14.09.2007 on the ground that at the time of the accident the insured vehicle has been driven by a person not authorised to drive the vehicle. The petitioner, therefore, approached the District Forum, Kurnool, and his C.C.No.94 of 2008 was allowed

¶15

on 24.10.2008. Aggrieved, the respondent went in appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission). By their order dated 01.06.2011 in F.A.No.811 of 2009 the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent observing that a person holding driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) vehicle is not authorised to drive LMV (passenger car). Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a person holding LMV (non-transport) licence, is authorised to drive LMV (passenger car), and therefore, the State Commission was in error. Counsel, however, does not dispute that against every order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its power under Section 17(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act), a revision lies to the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (National Commission) under Section 21(b) of the [1] Act. I n Om Prakash Saini v DCM Ltd . the Supreme Court observed that in matters arising under the Act, the High Court will not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the National Commission.

¶17

The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. The W.P.M.P shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶19

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶20

17.02.2012

¶21

¶22

[1] (2010) 11 SCC 622 : AIR 2010 SC 2608

S. Nageswar, v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Nageswar, v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India, a Body Corporate constitued Under the Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. with its Registered Office at

Ch. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad Vs Govt. of India

P. Venkata Raju Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Chief Secretary

Sudhakar Rao a Vs The Ap Pollution Control Board., Pariyavaran Bhavan

K. Raj Kumar, Vs Union Bank of India

Bolla Nancharamma (Died), W/o.Late Ramulu, Vs V.V. Subba Raju