1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 4772  OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.8151/2007]

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

M/S. WANI CARPETS AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. Heard

the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

The  parties  hereto  have  entered  into  a  contract  of  insurance  in  terms

whereof,  inter  alia,  in  the  event  of  loss  of  goods  caused  by  fire  and/or  riots,  the

appellant was to reimburse the claim of the respondents.   

The  respondents  filed  a  claim  petition  claiming  a  sum  of  Rs.34,90,000/-

before  the  State  Consumer  Protection  Commission.  The  J  & K State  Consumers

Protection  Commission  by  its  judgment  and  order  dated  8.10.2004  directed  the

appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.34,90,000/-  with interest at the rate of

9% per annum.

2

An  appeal  was  preferred  thereagainst  by  the  appellant  before  the  High

Court. The said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 7.9.2006. The appellant

filed an application for restoration of the said appeal. The High Court by reason of

the impugned order, without passing any order on the said restoration application,

directed:

“Our attention is invited to the award amount not being deposited

by  the  appellant-Company.  Four  weeks'  time  is  granted  for

depositing this amount.  

List after four weeks, as and when the Bench becomes available.”

Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

would submit that keeping in view the fact that the appeal was dismissed for default,

in absence of any order restoring the same to its original file, the impugned judgment

directing the appellant to deposit the entire amount awarded should not have been

passed.

It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 13.02.2007 has been passed

in Restoration Application No.8/2006.  

It  is  one thing to say that the Court imposes conditions  for restoring the

appeal  but  it  is  another  thing  to  say  that  before  exercising  its  discretionary

jurisdiction, some conditions could be imposed. The stage of exercising discretionary

jurisdiction of the High Court in restoring the said appeal preferred by the appellant

3

had not yet reached. It was for the High Court to pass appropriate orders on the said

application for restoration of appeal, at the first instance. Only in the event the High

Court thought it fit to allow the said application, it could have put the appellant to

reasonable terms.  

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained

and it is set aside accordingly. The High Court is requested to pass appropriate orders

on the merit of the restoration application at the first instance.  

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, AUGUST 1, 2008.