Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President; Dr. R.K. Shah, Member
PATEL RAMABHAI SHANKERDAS—Appellant/Original Complainant
versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent/Original Opponent
First Appeal No. 22 of 1992—Decided on 28.4.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. G.P. Brahmbhatt, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Served.
An insurance company is liable to pay the insurance claim to the policyholder if the insured event occurs during the policy period and the policyholder files a valid claim.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(1)(g) - INSURANCE POLICY - INTERPRETATION OF POLICY TERMS - PAYMENT OF INSURANCE CLAIM - MISTAKE IN DELIVERY OF CHEQUE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant insured his buffalo for Rs. 5,000/- with the respondent insurance company. The buffalo died during the policy period, and the complainant claimed the insurance amount. The District Forum ordered the insurance company to pay the amount, but the complainant did not receive the payment. He filed a complaint again, but the District Forum dismissed it, finding that the insurance company had already paid the amount by cheque, which was received and deposited by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the insurance company had mistakenly sent the cheque to a person with the same name in a different village. The complainant had not received the cheque and had not been dishonest. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and awarded the complainant Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant. 2. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for pain and suffering.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The insurance company was liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant because the buffalo died during the policy period and the complainant had filed a valid claim. 2. The complainant was entitled to compensation for pain and suffering because the insurance company had mistakenly sent the cheque to a different person, causing him inconvenience and distress.
Final Decision: The State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum, and awarded the complainant Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. The insurance company was also directed to pay interest on the insurance amount from the date of notice till the date of payment.
Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President—The appellant is the original complainant who has taken insurance for his buffalo for Rs. 5,000/- from the opponent. The buffalo died during the pendency of the policy and, therefore, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the Insurance Company - respondent herein. He filed a complaint No. 31/90. It appears that the District Forum passed an order in favour of the complainant directing the Insurance Company to make the payment of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. The complainant cannot receive the amount and, therefore, filed the complaint No. 154/91 from which this appeal has been filed. In the said complaint the opposite party filed a written statement (Ex. 5) and contented that the company had paid Rs. 5,000/- by cheque No. 32531 dated 25.9.91 which was sent by registered post to the complainant which has been received by the complainant and the cheque was deposited in the Central Co.op. Bank, Karannagar, Kadi and the amount has been cleared by the Central Bank of India, Kalol and debited to the account of the Insurance Company. Therefore without going into further merits the District Forum observed that inspite of the receipt of the amount, the complainant has filed the complaint to malign the Insurance Company and it is therefore required to be dismissed.
3. The Insurance Company has also produced the postal receipt which is purported to have been signed by Patel Rama Shankardas. The District Forum therefore dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay Rs. 200/- as cost.
4. The complainant being aggrieved by the 2nd order of the District Forum has filed this appeal and contended that he has not received any cheque for Rs. 5,000/- at all as directed by the District Forum in the previous complaint and he therefore served a notice to the other side dated 20.9.91. Even then the order of the Forum having not been complied, filed an application before the District Forum and the District Forum wrongly rejected the application with cost of Rs. 200/-.
The summons of the appeal has been served to the respondent but nobody appears on behalf of the Insurance Company. Mr. G.P. Brahmbhatt, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant states that his client has received the cheque for Rs. 5,000/- dated 13.4.92 i.e. after the filing of this appeal and the Insurance Company has taken a statement by way of receipt which has been signed by the complainant dated 14.4.92. Mr. Brahmbhatt produces that statement alongwith the purshish signed by him stating that Rs. 5,000/- has been received by his client after the filing of the appeal and requested that the order of the District Forum be set aside and the Insurance Company be saddled with cost.
5. On reading the statement taken by the Insurance Company from the complainant-appellant it appears that the Insurance Company has sent a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- which was bearing the name of the complainant at Village Karannagar, Tal. Kadi where some other person in the same name was staying. The registered post was served upon that other person at Karannagar and the other person appears to have presented the cheque to the Bank and payment appears to have been made to him and not to the present complainant. Inspite of filing of a complaint neither the Insurance Company nor the District Forum gave any importance to the statement and complaint filed by the complainant and without making any enquiry or ascertaining the proof dismissed the complaint with cost and, therefore, he has filed an appeal. It appears that the cheque appears to have been delivered in the name of the same person at Karannagar whereas the present complainant is residing at Kadi proper and not Karannagar. We therefore ascertained the original policy which shows the address of Kadi and the place as Karanpur but not village Karanpur. We are satisfied that the complainant is staying at Kadi proper where Karanpur is the local area for purpose of his address. It appears that this mista
