Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 93 (UTT)

Sumit Ghosh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2006-03-20

K.S.GUPTA, R.D.SHENOY

body2006
ORDER In this revision challenge is to the order dated 7.92002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttaranchal allowing appeal against the order dated 1.12.2001 of a District Forum. Vehicle No. UP-ll -A-2975 belol1ging to Retesh Ghosh was insured with respondent/opposite party Insurance Co. for on~ year commencing from 17.8.1996. On 10.3.1997 the vehicle met with an accident wherein said Retesh Ghosh, his father and brother died. LRs of the three deceased filed Claim petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haridwar. Petition filed by the LRs of Retesh Ghosh was got dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, complaint dated 28.9.1999 was filed before the District Forum claiming amount of Rs.5 lakhs by way of compensation for the death of Retesh Ghosh. Complaint was contested by the respondent on a variety of grounds. One of the grounds taken, was that the complaint before Consumer fora is not maintainable. The District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent to pay amount as of policy with interest. In appeal that order was set aside by the State Commission. 2. Controversy between the parties mainly revolves around the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to entertain the complaint. Copy of policy is placed at page 21. Ms. Yadav contends that in the policy 5% amount has been charged towards service tax and by virtue of this payment the LRs of Retesh Ghosh acquired the status of a "consumer" and complaint is thus, legally maintainable before the Consumer Fora. On the other hand, relying on the decision in Chairman. Thiruvalluvar. Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council. AIR 1995 SC 1358 Shri Paul urges that complaint for compensation due to death of Retesh Ghosh would lie only under the provisions in Chapter XII of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He points out that the said Act being special Act would prevail over Consumer Protection Act. 1986. Having considered the said decision we are in agreement with Shri Paul that complaint for compensation for the death of Retesh Ghosh would lie only under Chapter XII of Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and not before the Consumer Fora. Payment of service tax, if any has no relevance whatsoever. State Commission had thus, rightly allowed the appeal by the order under challenge. Revision petition is therefore, dismissed being without any merit. No order as to cost.