Case title: Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co Ltd
Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that a litigant should not be subjected to suffering due to their attorney’s negligence in an insurance claim. The NCDRC denied the claim, stating that the withdrawal of the complaint made it impossible to register a new complaint. The claimant then filed a new complaint, alleging the counsel made an error in withdrawing funds. The court noted that the claimant was not able to endure the consequences of the counsel’s negligence. The Supreme Court has also declined to vacate a conviction in a rape case, stating that the complaint cannot be dismissed on the basis of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) CPC.
About the case
The Supreme Court observed in a case concerning an insurance claim that a litigant should not be subjected to suffering as a result of the counsel’s negligence. that a party should not be subjected to suffering unless it is the responsibility of their attorney. A plea against the NCDRC judgment, which denied an insurance claim, was being heard by the bench, which consisted of Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Vishwanathan. In this instance, the NCDRC had previously determined that the withdrawal of the complaint rendered it impossible to register a new complaint, as it was prohibited by Order XXIII Rule (1) (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure1 (CPC).
The counsel had submitted the following statement prior to the district forum: “I, Surender Kumar Gulia, Advocate, declare that I do not wish to continue with my case.” Consideration may be given to its dismissal. The claim was dismissed by the district forum, which recorded his statement of withdrawal.
The claimant submitted a new complaint, alleging that his counsel made an error in withdrawing the funds. The court observed that the advocate for the complainant withdrew the aforementioned complaint on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate for the Insurance Company, without having received explicit instructions to retract the complaint. Nevertheless, the complainant is unable to endure the consequences of the advocate’s negligence.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has declined to vacate the conviction in a rape case, despite the fact that the victim was not suggested the case of the accused under S.313 CrPC during cross-examination. Therefore, the Court observed that the complaint cannot be dismissed on the basis of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) CPC, and in the peculiar circumstances, it necessitates consideration on the merits. From 2008 to 2009, the appellant was the proprietor of a lorry that was insured for $840,000.The policy was valid. The appellant’s vehicle was stolen on June 26, 2008, when the driver left the key in the ignition and exited the vehicle to inquire about an individual. He submitted a FIR and informed the respondent of the larceny in order to claim insurance. He submitted a complaint to the district forum, which granted him 75% of the guaranteed sum on a nonstandard basis. The same was confirmed by the state commission. However, NCDRC denied his assertion. He approached the Supreme Court in response to his frustration.
