New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 15 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:82839
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4115 of 2026   
 
   New India Assurance Co. Ltd.    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Union Of India And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Rahul Sahai   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
A.S.G.I.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Sri. Rahul Chaudhary has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 2, is taken on record.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned cousnel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the document available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the second respondent, M/s SBEC Sugar Limited, Baghpat instituted a complaint before Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Baghpat seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,46,61,591/- for damages and harassment and cost towards litigation which became to be registered as Complaint Case No. 8 of 2025. As per the present petitioner, notices came to be issued on 19.02.2025 fixing the date on 20.03.2025 which came to be served in the Meerut office of the writ petitioner on 23.05.2025 and on the same day a lawyer was nominated who on inspection found that the case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte on 17.04.2025. Thereafter, an application under order 9 Rule 7 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 17.04.2025 came to be preferred on 05.06.2025 to which an objection was preferred by the contesting respondents and thereafter, on 25.09.2025 the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Baghpat proceeded to allow the application so preferred by the writ petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as cost fixing 06.11.2025 for evidence. A revision came to be preferred by the contesting respondents being RP No. 98 of 2025 SBEC Sugar Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow and thereafter the revisional court relying the provisions contained under Section 38(9) and (11) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came to the conclusion that the provision under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC was not available and further relying upon the judgment in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757 set aside the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by District Commission, Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 8 of 2025 on 08.12.2025 with a direction to the District Commission to dispose of the same having regard to the provisions contained under Section 38 (9) and (11) of the 2019 Act as well as the judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court in Delhi Multipurpose Company Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). The petitioners being aggrieved the same, preferred a revision petition Diary No. 1107/NCDRC/2026-RP before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi Diary No. 1107/NCDRC/2026-RP (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. SBEC Sugar Limited) wherein the NCDRC New Delhi denuded itself in interfering with the order impugned therein leaving it open for the writ petitioner to either file a review application before the State Commission or invoke writ jurisdiction before the court having territorial jurisdiction by virtue of the order dated 21.01.2026.

5. Questioning the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow the present petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought to argue that the glaring infirmity which goes to the route of the matter is at the level of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission particularly when good bad in different whatever might be the order challenged by the other party before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission then to it was incumbent and imperative upon State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to have put to notice the writ petitioner who was possessing a favorable order in his favour. Submission is that the point itself is arguable in the background of the fact that Section 38 (9) and (11) enjoins the District Commissioner who have the same powers as are vested with the Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure thus, though the specific provision of CPC may not be attracted but the principles would be attracted. Contention is that at least the stand of the writ petitioner ought to have taking note while issuing notice and hearing particularly when an order was subject matter of challenge which was in favour of the petitioner thus, there happens to be not only violation of principles of natural justice but also miscarriage of justice. Further submission is that the proceedings before the District Commission be stood proceeded ex-parte on 17.04.2025 whereas the notice was served upon the writ petitioner on 23.05.2025 as apparent from page 67 of the petition thus, it is improbable and inconceivable that the writ petitioner would have any knowledge in this regard.

7. Countering the submissions so made by the learned cousnel for the writ petitioner, Sri Chaudhary, who appears for the contesting respondents submits that the service of notice stood effectuated upon the writ petitioner on 24.02.2025 on the registered office and on 27.02.2025 on the office issuing the policy. He submits that dilatory tactics has been adopted and all the courts below and the orders impugned cannot be faulted. Reliance has been placed upon Section 38 of 2019.

8. I have heard submissions so made at the bar and perused the record.

9. Broadly the fact are not in issue. It is not in dispute that the contesting respondents instituted complaint case against the writ petitioner seeking compensation and other ancillary benefits. On 17.04.2025 the District Commission directed to proceed ex-parte against the writ petition. The bone of contention between the rival parties is whether the service was affected upon the writ petitioner before the day when the matter was directed to be proceeded ex-parte. The writ petitioner claims that service of notice was made on 23.05.2025 post issuance of notice on 19.02.2025 when the date was fixed on 20.03.2025 whereas the stand of the contesting respondent is that the notice stood served upon the petitioner is in registered office on 24.02.2025 and on 27.02.2025 the office issuing the policy importantly. The District Commission on the cost of Rs. 500/- recalled the order by invoking the provisions under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. On the revision preferred by the contesting respondent the order was set aside without hearing the writ petitioners.

10. It might be a case wherein the order does not appear to be legal but that does not mean that though on one hand the parties in whose favour an order has been passed is impleaded as respondent but he is not to be heard. Nonetheless, in a given case under Article 226 of the constitution of India direction can be issued but there is a serious dispute that the commission may not have the same power which is arable to in writ jurisdiction. Nonetheless, here what is important is that they should not be violation of principles of natural justice though the defence might be feeble weak or whatever. Bearing in mind the aforesaid aspects of the matter including the fact that the dates on which the service stated to be affected has also not been noticed in either of the orders passed by the State Commissioner thus, the matter need to be revisited.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms:-

(a) The order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commisisoner U/P., Lucknow RP No. 98/2025 (M/s SBEC Sugar Ltd. And another Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.) is set aside.

(b) The matter stands remitted back to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission U.P,. Lucknow to rehear and decide the revision a fresh.

(C) Since the Insurance Company is represented through its counsel and so much so the complainant contesting respondent is also represented through its counsel thus, it would be deemed that they have full knowledge about the order passed today.

12. The certified order shall be placed before the Commission by 27.04.2026, thereafter, the Commission shall passed appropriate orders without granting unnecessary adjournments.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

April 15, 2026

Nisha