SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010(3) CPR 221
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel, President; Saroj Sharma, and Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Members
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Anr. —Appellants
versus
Hardyal Singh Negi —Respondent
First Appeal No. 225 of 2007 with First Appeal No. 254/2007
Decided on 10.5.2010

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Naseeb Singh Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the insurance company has withheld the amount of compensation for which the complainant had been held legitimately entitled to it shall be liable to pay interest thereon from the date of such withholding.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) —Deficiency in service—Insurance claim—Vehicle involved in accident insured in sum of Rs. 7,50,000—Offer of insurer to settle claim of complainant at Rs. 2,92,190 accepted by the latter—Promise not fulfilled by the insurance company—Complainant furnished bills cash memos besides salvage to the OPs—Genuineness of the documents not questioned—Insurer directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,10,327 with interest @ 9 per cent. (Para 12 to 15)

       

ORDER (ORAL)

Arun Kumar Goel, President—Since these appeals have arisen out of the order passed by District Forum, Shimla, in complaint No.27/2005 on 13.3.2007, as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Admitted facts giving rise to these appeals are that Shri Hardayal Singh Negi, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, got his vehicle bearing Registration No.HP-26-0168 insured with the respondents in the sum of Rs.7,50,000. It met with accident on 21.12.01 during the validity of the Insurance policy. Shri R.S. Gill was deputed as surveyor to assess the loss. When the claim was not settled, the complainant filed a complaint in this Commission against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Branch Manager at Parwanoo, to be hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties (OPs) Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. During the course of proceedings in this complaint, it was pleaded by the OPs that they were ready and willing to settle the claim in the sum of Rs. 2,92,190 as full and final payment on deposit of salvage and requisite documents. This was registered as complaint No.7 of 2002. Order passed on 22.11.2002 in this complaint by this Commission was to the following effect:

“22.11.2002

Present: Mr. Bipin Negi, Advocate,

for the complainant.

Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate vice

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate,

For the opposite party.

Today, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that as per the averments in para 7 of the reply to the complaint, the opposite party Insurance Company is willing to settle the claim on full and final basis for an amount of Rs.2,92,190 (as per surveyor’s report) in case proper repair bills/cash memos are furnished by the complainant and salvage is deposited. The learned counsel for the complainant says that in view of this averment in the reply, the complaint is not pressed at this stage, while at the same time, reserving the right of the complainant to pursue the remedy regarding his full claim for indemnification against the opposite party Insurance Company before the appropriate Forum/Court. We accordingly dispose of the complaint with liberty reserved to the complainant to avail of his remedy regarding his full claim for indemnification against the opposite party Insurance Company before the appropriate Forum/Court. We further direct the opposite party to comply with its own offer as referred to above on complainant depositing the salvage within six weeks, the complainant also is directed to furnish the repair bills/cash memos, as also to take step regarding salvage within the above period. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

3. It appears that when his claim was not settled, the complainant filed execution petition No.3 of 2003 for executing the order passed in original complaint No.7 of 2002, supra. Operative portion of the order passed in this execution petition was to the following effect:

“It is clear from the above statement of pleadings in the present execution petition that both the parties are at issue as regards the compliance of our order dated 22.11.2002 and consequently disputed questions of fact arise herein. In these circumstances, it is not possible to ensure compliance/execution of the said order by way of the present proceedings. In other words, the present execution is incapable of being decided in favour of the complainant. The case is disposed of accordingly with liberty reserved to him to avail of his remedy, if any, before the appropriate Forum/Court, including filing of a fresh complaint, if the circumstances so justify and in case it is maintainable under the law.”

4. After passing of the order in the complaint by this Commission, and before disposal of the execution, it is clearly made out from Annexure P2, the letter dated 31.3.2003, issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant that bills, cash memos, salvage etc. had been submitted by the complainant. The contents of this letter are to th










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top