2009 INSC 0682
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                   Haabia Advertising India Pvt. Ltd.

                                                      Vs.

                                     United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

                                           C.A.No.2008 of 2009

                                  (B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi JJ.)

                                                  30.03.2009

                                                   ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant is Advertising Company. It is engaged in the business of putting up
advertisements through hoardings and sky-signs at Vishakhapatnam. In 1994, the appellant
filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act")
for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs by stating that the hoardings which
were insured were illegally removed by the authorities. By an order dated 8.8.2001, the
Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, `the State
Commission') held that there was no deficiency of service and dismissed the complaint. The
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, "the National Commission")
confirmed the order of the State Commission by observing that after having availed the
remedy by filing writ petition and contempt petition before the High Court, the petitioner

4. In our view, the reason assigned by the National Commissions for refusing to entertain the
claim of the appellant is legally untenable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside
because the writ petition and contempt petition filed by the appellant against the Municipal
Corporation in the matter of alleged illegal removal of hoardings etc. do not have direct
bearing on its claim for award of compensation.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the matter is
remanded to the National Commission for disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant on
merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

1  SpotLaw