NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.
125 OF 2002
IN
M/s. Diamond Elastomers Pvt. Ltd. Complainant
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Party
AND
M/s. Diamond Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Complainant
Vs.
United India Insurance Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
HONBL
MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.
MR.
B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
Lawyer - deficient in service - National Commission recording settlement on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the Insurance Company - order sought to be recalled on the ground that counsel had no such instruction. Held - no question of fraud arises for recalling the order. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. - (1996) 5 SCC 550 is inapplicable. Insurance Company may proceed against its lawyer for deficiency in service, if any.
For the complainant in : Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate
both the petitions
For the opposite party in : Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate and
both the petitions Mr. K.L. Nandwani and Mr. Shailneder Kumar
Advocates with him.
O R D E R
DATED THE 28th
May, 2002.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).
By this application Insurance Company who was opposite party in Original Petition No.60 and 61/1991 seeks to have the order dated 5th September, 2000 passed by this Commission set a side. It is contended that the impugned order was on the basis of a settlement allegedly between the complainant and the Insurance Company and that when there was no such instructions to the Advocate
of the Insurance Company, he agreed to the settlement. It is submitted that such a settlement was arrived on account of fraud committed by the Advocate of the Insurance Company. The Advocate is Mr. A.K. Kohli. The impugned order dated 5th September, 2000 is as under:
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUHAS C. SEN, PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.
MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
For the complainant : Mr. M. Wadhwani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Kohli, Advocate
ORDER
ORIGINAL PETITION NO.60 OF 1991
On 23rd March, 1999, in the presence of Mr. E.M.S. Murthy, Manager, Legal of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. we suggested to the parties to settle the matter amicably, if possible. Today we are informed by the Counsel for the parties that they have settled the matter amicable. In terms of the settlement, the Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs.12,32,123/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1st May, 1990, till the date of payment in full and final settlement of all the claims raised in this petition. The settlement is recorded. The Insurance Company is allowed two months time to pay the amount. The Original Petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement. The parties shall bear their respective costs. File to be consigned to records.
ORIGINAL PETITION NO.61 OF 1991
On 23rd March, 1999, in the presence of Mr. E.M.S. Murthy, Manager, Legal of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. we suggested to the parties to settle the matter amicably, if possible. Today we are informed by the Counsel for the parties that they have settled the matter amicable. In terms of the settlement, the
insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs.13,69,194/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1st May, 1990, till the date of payment in full and final settlement of all the claims raised in this petition. The settlement is recorded. The Insurance Company is allowed two months time to pay the amount. The Original Petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement. The parties shall bear their respective costs. File to be consigned to records.
It is also submitted before us that against this order Insurance Company went in appeal to the Supreme Court which appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. We do not know the circumstances under which the appeal was withdrawn from the Supreme Court. However, the fact remains that Mr. Kohli was duly authorised counsel of the Insurance Company and he as a counsel could make statement that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. On that basis the impugned order was passed.
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company says that a complaint has been filed against Mr. Kohli with the Bar Council of India. We are not concerned with that. His further contention is that this settlement was on account of fraud played on the Commission by Mr. Kohli, Advocate for the Insurance Company by making a statement that matter had been amicably settled when he had no instructions to do so. In support of his submission Mr. Malhotra has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. - (1996) 5 SCC 550. We are unable to appreciate as to how this judgment is applicable to the issue involved in the present case. The case here is that Mr. Kohli went beyond his brief given
to him by the Insurance Company and he should not have agreed to any settlement i.e. between the complainant and the Insurance Company. As far as this Commission is concerned no question of any fraud arises for which this Commission has to recall its order. If a counsel goes beyond a brief given to him and any harm is caused to the party for whom he appears, it would be a case of deficiency in service for which that party can file a complaint against the counsel for deficiency in service and claim damages. It is not for us to advise the Insurance Company as what to do in a case where its counsel has acted without instructions and has caused loss to the Insurance Company. We, however, do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed.
J
(D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
J
(J.K. MEHRA)
MEMBER
.
(B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER