The Supreme Court in the case Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co Ltd observed and has stated that the litigant should not be made to suffer because of a fault of the counsel.
The court stated that the party should not be made to suffer which being only due to the fault of counsel.
The bench comprising of Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Vishwanathan was hearing the present plea against the judgement of NCDRC wherein it denied the insurance claim.
In the present case, it has previously been held by the NCDRC that since the complaint was withdrawn, no fresh complaint could have been filed, as it was being barred as stated under Order XXIII Rule (1) (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure1, CPC.
The counsel, Advocate, Surender Kumar Gulia appearing submitted before the district forum that I do not want to proceed with my case. Thus, it may be disposed and the district forum disposed of the claim recording his statement of withdrawal.
Therefore, the claimant in the case filed the of the claim recording his statement of withdrawal.
It has been observed by the court that the said complaint was to be withdrawn by the advocate of the complainant on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate of the Insurance Company, thus, without having to express instructions for withdrawal of the said complaint and for the fault of the advocate, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.
Further, it has been observed by the said court that the complaint cannot be thrown out on the threshold of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1907 and in the peculiar facts, it requires consideration on merits.
Facts of the Case:
The appellant being the owner of a truck having a valid insurance policy for an amount of Rs. 8,40,000 from 2008 to 2009. Therefore, the vehicle of the appellant was stolen when the driver left the key on and got off the vehicle to enquire about a person on 26.06.2008.
Further, an FIR was filed by him and intimated the respondent about the theft to claim insurance and the complaint was filed by him before the district forum which awarded him 75% of the assured sum on a nonstandard basis. Thus, State commission affirmed the same and the claim has been rejected by the NCDRC.
Accordingly, he approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved with the same.
