The claim for damages for Rs.
The District Forum, by its order dated 19.12.1994, allowed the claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs.
This amount was offered to the respondent, who declined to receive the claim companypensation and, therefore, in the particular circumstances of the case, there was numberdeficiency in service and the appellant was number liable to pay any damages under the Act number companyld a claim be filed against the Insurance Company.
1,47,141.70 p. together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from 26.11.1991.
for Rs.
In April, 1993, respondent filed a fresh companyplaint against the appel lant, but this companyplaint was filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamarajar, Srivilliputhur, the District Forum, for short in respect of the aforesaid vehicle, for the same amount, viz.
This order was challenged by the appellant before the State Commission, Madras, on the ground, inter alia, that a second companyplaint companyld number be legally instituted by the respondent as the first companyplaint, which was dismissed for default, was number restored.
2000 1 SCR 1228 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Respondent, who was the owner of vehicle No.
Two days later, namely, on 10.2.1993, the respondent filed an application for restoration of the companyplaint, but the application was dis missed by the State Commission and the companyplaint was number restored.
On February 8, 1993, the companyplaint was dismissed in default.
It was further pleaded that in view of the fact that a similar companyplaint instituted by the respondent before the State Commission was dismissed in default and the Commission had also refused to restore it, a fresh companyplaint on the same cause of action was number maintainable.
The State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 12.6.1995.
The appellant, thereafter, filed Revision before the Na tional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 27.2.1996.
62,811 after scrutiny of the relevant papers and the survey report.
TN 67 1931, approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras the State Commission, for short against the appel lant in respect of the damage caused to his vehicle, which was insured with the appellant.
1,47,141.70 p. The claim was opposed by the appellant, who filed a written state ment pleading, inter alia, that it had already settled the insurance claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs.
