HENRY DENIS MENEZES vs THE BRANCH MANAGER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59718-DB
WP No. 2665 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010063542023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 2665 OF 2023 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
HENRY DENIS MENEZES
S/O LATE CYRIL MENEZES
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A THREE HOUSE,
PACHANADY, BONDEL POST
MANGALORE.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
Digitally signed
by YASHODA K
L
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING COMPANY
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE
AT BALMATTA MANGALORE
NOW REP BY REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
TH TH
REGIONAL OFFICE 5 AND 6 FLOOR,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59718-DB
WP No. 2665 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010063542023
KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE – 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 17/12/2022 PASSED IN RA NO.90/2022 ON THE
FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDITIONAL BENCH) (ANNEXURE-
G) AND ALLOW THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO.90/2022 ON
THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDITIONAL BENCH)
(ANNEXURE-F).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59718-DB
WP No. 2665 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010063542023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Despite due notice to the respondent-Insurance Company
and this Court directing on 20.08.2026, the learned panel
counsel present in Court accept notice on behalf of the
respondent. No one appears when the matter is called.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a. Quash the order dated 17.12.2022 passed in
R.A.No.90/2022 on the file of Karnataka
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Bangalore (Additional Bench) (Annexure-G).
b. Allow the Review Application No.90/2022 on the
file of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Additional
Bench) (Annexure-F).
c. Quash the order dated 01.06.2022 passed in
Complaint No.90/2022 on the file of Karnataka
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bangalore (Annexure-E).
4. It appears that the Complaint No.246/2011 was
filed by the petitioner before the District Forum which came to
be allowed directing the respondent-Insurance Company to pay
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59718-DB
WP No. 2665 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010063542023
a sum of Rs.7,04,700/- to the petitioner along with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the
date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost towards
litigation expenses.
5. The aforesaid order of the District Commission
came to be challenged before the State Commission in Appeal
No.974/2014. On 14.02.2022, it is stated by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, that the case was directed to be
listed for hearing on 01.06.2022. It is stated that on that date
of hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner was present but
no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant. The
case was accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution and the
Court clerk recorded on the list against the case appearing at
Sl.No.29 as dismissed. However, after the counsel for the
petitioner had left the Court, the matter was heard in his
absence noting that the respondent did not address his
argument before the Commission inspite of sufficient
opportunities given to him and the award was passed and
consequently, the word ‘dismissed’ was struck off and the word
‘allowed’ was written.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59718-DB
WP No. 2665 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010063542023
6. It is submitted that by the means of the impugned
Appellate order, the State Commission had reduced the amount
of compensation awarded by the District Commission to
Rs.5,87,050/- only on the basis of the report made by the
surveyor. The surveyor’s report appears at page No.62, in the
summary of repair assessment, the original estimate is shown
as Rs.9,63,587.00 but in the surveyor assessment, the figure is
shown as Rs.5,87,050.08. This figure is assessed by the
surveyor after totaling the total labour charges plus cost of
spare parts as Rs.7,04,662.32 and after deducting depreciation,
excess and less salvage value of parts.
7. It is evident from the aforesaid that the deductions
made on the amount of Rs.7,04,662.32 have not at all been
considered by the State Commission in the order impugned
dated 01.06.2022 or in the order of review. Though, the order
passed in review could be said to be in conformity with the
provision of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,
however, the fact remains that the complaint was of the year
2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that there was
no provision of review in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59718-DB
WP No. 2665 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010063542023
8. Without there being any consideration by the State
Commission with regard to the deductions made by the
surveyor in its report, the order could not have been passed as
aforesaid. Thus, given the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner with regard to the order being
changed from dismissal to being allowed, which was also raised
by the petitioner in the review petition, we find that the order
impugned deserves to be set aside.
9. At this stage, a colleague of Sri. A.N.Krishnaswamy,
learned counsel has appeared and states that he needs to file a
counter affidavit to this petition. However, in view of the order
that we proposed to pass, we decline the request.
allowed
10. This petition is accordingly . The order of
the State Commission dated 01.06.2022 is set aside and the
case is remanded to the State Commission to proceed with the
matter after hearing the counsel for the parties. The counsel
for the parties are mandated to appear before the State
Commission on everyday of listing and co-operate in the early
disposal of the appeal.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59718-DB
WP No. 2665 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010063542023
Pending IA’s stand disposed of.
Any amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall
be subject to the final outcome of the appeal.
SD/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
SD/-
(N.V.BHAVANI)
JUDGE
GJM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2