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

2012(3) CPR 176 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Sarbari Bibi and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3707 of 2007
Decided on 23.3.2012

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Vatsla Kak, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
State Commission apart from being first Court of appeal is also final Court of fact.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to Excavator in accident—State Commission directed Petitioners to pay retrieval charges of Rs.2,8,5,000 minus amount already awarded by District Forum(Rs.1,42,500/-)— Compensation of Rs.5,000 awarded by District Forum enhanced to Rs.50,000 and litigation costs quantified at Rs.20,000—State Commission apart from being first Court of appeal is also final Court of fact—In our revisional jurisdiction no reason to dispute findings of State Commission—Petitioner/Insurance Company directed to pay retrieval charges of Rs.2,85,000 with 9% interest and Rs.20,000 as compensation. (Paras 5 to 9)

       Result: Revision petition disposed of with directions.

       

ORDER

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member—Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 250/2005 in favour of Sarbari Bibi and others, Respondents herein who were the original complainant before the District Forum.

2. The facts of the case are that Rehmat Ali, deceased husband of the Respondent (Sarbari Bibi) after getting a loan from Central Bank of India purchased a Tata Hitachi EX-100 Excavator in 2001 which was insured for a sum of Rs.22,00,000 under a comprehensive insurance policy for the period 4.12.2002 to 3.12.2003 with the Petitioner/Insurance Company. On 10.11.2003 an accident occurred at Rauli Nalla in Distt. Kullu, H.P. in which the Excavator fell about 40 feet down and got totally damaged. Rehmat Ali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insuree/deceased’) also expired in the said accident. The accident was duly reported to the Petitioner /Insurance Company who appointed a surveyor to investigate the matter. Respondent being the nominee/wife of the insuree filed the claim and gave all relevant documents to the surveyor for early settlement of the claim. The surveyor asked Respondent to retrieve the Excavator from the spot and even though the cost of retrieval was very high, since the Respondent was assured that the retrieving charges will be borne by Petitioner Insurance Company, a private crane was hired to retrieve the Excavator which charged Rs. 2,85,000 from the Respondent and on payment of this amount gave a receipt to that effect. Thereafter, another surveyor was appointed for assessment of loss and an estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.19,54,000 was made available to him as also to the Petitioner /Insurance Company. However, despite having submitted all the necessary papers and receipts, the claim was not settled. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner/Insurance Company be directed to pay75% of the total sum assured i.e. Rs.16,60,000 as also Rs.2,85,000 spent by Respondent on retrieving the Excavator along with accrued interest on the loan amount from the date of accident till realization. A compensation of Rs.50,000 towards harassment and mental agony including litigation cost was also sought.

3. Petitioner /Insurance Company while admitting that accident had taken place in which the insuree had lost his life, stated that the partnership firm (M/s. Naim Akhtar Contractors) comprising Naim Akhtar and the deceased/insuree had got dissolved before the institution of the complaint and, therefore, there was no contract of insurance of the complainant with Petitioner /Insurance Company. Also there was no deficiency in tendering any services because the claim lodged by the Respondent has been processed and settled and that the complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner.

4. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint and concluded that since the Excavator had not been totally damaged in the instant case, the Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.8,04,100 as insurance claim and Rs.1,42,500 as retrieval charges, totalling Rs. 9,46,600 to the Respondent by depositing the same in the loan account of the insuree in the concerned Bank within two months failing which interest @ 6% per annum would be charged from the date of filing of the claim till the entire amount is realized. Rs.5,000 was ‘awarded as compensation for harassment.

5. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner/Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same and directed the Petitioners to pay the retrieval charges of Rs.2,8,5,000 minus the amount already awarded by the District Forum i.e. Rs. 1,42,500 and since the Excavator was financed and hypothecated by the Central Bank of India, the interest on the total amount awarded by the D










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
whatsapp-icon Back to top