Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Mr. Y. Krishan and Mr. B.S. Yadav, Members
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
M/S. MOHAN LAL & SONS—Respondents
First Appeal No. 22 of 1991—Decided on 8.1.1992
M/S. MOHAN LAL & SONS—Respondents
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
First Appeal No. 57 of 1991—Decided on 8.1.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Respondents in F.A. 2/91 & for the Appellants in F.A. 57/91: Mr. Prakash Agarwal, Authorised Representative.
For the Appellant in F.A. 22/91 & for the Respondents in F.A. 57/91:Miss Suman Bagga, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 14 & 17 - Complaint regarding deficient amount having been paid to the complainant under the policy - Fire Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs - Premium recovered was also for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs However, the amount as shown in the insurance policy document was Rs. 3 lacs - Clerical mistake - insured received the amount under a full and final discharge without any qualification or protest - He cannot be allowed to take unfair advantage of a typing mistake in the documents regarding the amount insured just by trying to use consumer redressal agency.
(Paras 6 & 7)
(ii) Practice & Procedure - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Jurisdiction of consumer Forums to take cognizance of any deficiency in service or unjust reduction in the amount payable to the complainant suo motu on the basis of facts disclosed· Full opportunity must necessarily be given to the opposite party to justify and defend its action - New facts cannot be allowed to be introduced - The parties must confine themselves to the facts already placed before them.
Held: The Insurance Company while settling the claim had made a deduction of 10 per cent by way of penalty inasmuch as the claim was deemed to be substandard but which deduction has been disallowed by the State Commission.
According to the Appellant the respondent/complainant had not raised any objection to this deduction at the time of settlement of the claim, but the State Commission suo motu disallowed this deduction. We feel that this was done by the State Commission for good and sufficient reasons. The State Commission has observed that the relevant provision for deduction for such contingency was not placed before the State Commission, and that there was no evidence that a gas cylinder was lying on the spot.
We, therefore, concur with the finding of the State Commission that there is no rationale behind the action of the insurance company in deducting 10 per cent from the payment to be made to the insured on the fire claim.
(Paras 9, 10, 11)
Result: Claim of Complainant disallowed with payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the Insurance Company.
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because the complainant due to ignorance has failed to make a specific prayer for a relief in his petition will be no bar to the Consumer Forums taking congnizance of the same suo motu. When the facts of a complaint before a forum reveal deficiency in service or unjust reduction in the amount payable to the complainant.
Mr. Y. Krishan, Member — According to the respondent complainant in F.A. 22/91 he had taken out two insurance policies :
(a) Fire Policy A effective for the period from 9.9.1988 to 8.9.1989 for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs;
(b) A Shopkeeper Insurance Policy from 17.1.1989 to 16.1.1990 for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs.
The fire occurred on 21st April, 1989.
While dealing with the claim against the fire policy, the appellant Insurance Company discovered that the policy was for Rs. 2 lacs, but through clerical mistake it was shown in the insurance policy document as a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. Premium, however, was recovered for the amount of Rs. 2 lacs only. The complainant respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 4,53,603/- as total insurance amount under both the policies.
2. The State Commission, after examination of evidence, came to the conclusion that the Fire Policy was for Rs. 2 lacs, that there was a typing error in indicating the amount of insurance in the policy document and that the respondent complainant cannot take advantage of the typing mistake committed in the office of the Insurance Company.
3. During the arguments before the State Commission, it came to the notice of that Commission that the Insurance Company had deducted a sum of Rs. 45,360/- on the ground that the claim was substandard inasmuch as a gas cylinder and a welding machine were stated to have been found kept in the premises. The State Commission, after consideration, declared that there was no reationale behind the action of the Insurance Company in deducting 10 per cent of the payment to be made to the insured on fire claim and a deduction of Rs. 45,360/- was not correct and that it was a wrongful deduction without any basis whatsoever. The State Commission, therefore, ruled that the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 45,360/-.
4. We have gone into the matter in detail and heard the parties at length. It has been conclusively established that the Fire Insurance Policy was for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, the premium recovered was also for Rs. 2 lacs and that the amount shown in the policy documents viz. Rs. 3 lacs was a mistake.
5. In coming to this conclusion, the following facts are relevant:
(i) Originally a Fire Insurance Policy had been issued based on the insurance proposal for a period of 4 months from 10.5.1988 to 9.9.1988 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. The renewal notice issued by the Insurance Company for the relevant policy from 9.9.1988 to 8.9.1990 was for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. The premium recovered was also for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs.
(ii) The insured was informed about the error in the amount of policy being Rs. 2 lacs and not Rs. 3 lacs on 23rd August, 1989 but the insured kept quiet.
(iii) Subsequently the insured received the amount under a full and final discharge without any qualification or protest in November, 1989,
(iv) The respondent complainant filed his complaint regarding deficient amount having been paid to him under the policy only in the year 1990.
We, therefore, confirm the finding of the State Commission that the policy was for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and that the Respondent complainant cannot be allowed to take unfair advantage of a typing mistake in the Insurance Policy document regarding the amount insured.
6. We have also good reasons to feel that the respondent complainant has tried to take unfair advantage of a typing mistake knowing full well that the policy was for Rs. 2 lacs only, and that he has tried to make use of the Consumer Disputes Redressal machinery to extract extra and undue amount from the appellant-opposite party.
7. As mentioned earlier, the Insurance Company while settling the claim had made a deduction of 10 per cent by way of penalty inasmuch as the claim was deemed to be substandard but which deduction has been disallowed by the State Commission.
8. According to the Appellant that the respondent/complainant had not raised any objection to this deduction at the time of settlement of the claim, but the State Commission suo motu disallowed this
