IMPORTANT POINT
Each accident gives rise to a fresh cause of action.

M. Shreesha, Member—Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to order dated 15.10.2008 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal No. 925 of 2008. By its impugned order dated 15.10.2008, the State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (for short the ‘District Forum’) in CC No. 134 of 2007, by which order the District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the assured amount of Rs.4,00,000/- together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Succinctly put, the brief facts in the Complaint are: that the Complainant obtained an Insurance Policy for Rs.4 lakhs for his Lancer car covering the period from 5.5.2004 to 4.5.2005. While so, on 8.6.2004, the vehicle met with an accident and the Complainant averred that he had got it repaired spending Rs.1,75,986/-. On 18.7.2004, once again, the said car met with an accident and was sent for repairs to M/s. H.M. Western Indian States Motors Workshop, Jaipur. It was pleaded that the surveyor, Mr. Anshu Misra, submitted his Survey Report of the first accident on 7.7.2004. Mr. G.B. Mathur and Mr. Vikram Arora submitted their Investigation Reports on 1.3.2005 and 19.4.2005 respectively concluding that both the accidents were genuine. The workshop had written to the Complainant that the vehicle was lying with them since July, 2004 and was demanding demurrage charges at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Complainant had claimed in all Rs.5,86,084/-. The first claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the Complainant had violated Condition No. 1 of the Policy which reads as under:

“Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require”.

3. With respect to the second claim, after a long period of one year, the Insurance Company had asked the Complainant to get it repaired and then submit the relevant bills.

4. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Party/Insurance Company, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay the claim amounts with interest, demurrage charges, compensation and costs.

5. The Insurance Company filed their written version and pleaded that the matter was referred to the Ombudsman and that the decision of the Ombudsman was final as stipulated under the Arbitration Act.

6. The Appellant/ Insurance Company averred that the Complainant did not inform them about the first accident, its loss or damage and that they were not aware of the payment made by the insured to the workshop for repairing the vehicle. They averred that they had come to know of the accident only after they received the survey report. The surveyor, Mr. Anshu Misra assessed the loss of the first accident at Rs.1,24,250/- vide his final report dated 7.7.2004. It was pleaded that this report lacks in professional acumen as the surveyor did not give the details of the parts which he had allowed. Mr. Ashwani Beri, the surveyor who assessed the loss of the second accident filed his report on 30.12.2004 for an amount of Rs.2,01,204/-.

7. The Petitioner-Insurance Company appointed two Investigators to enquire into the details of both the accidents. The first Investigator reported that after the first accident, the car was repaired by the Complainant through his own sources. The Petitioner/Insurance Company based on the Surveyor Reports and the Investigation Reports, pleaded that the external damages to the Engine Block do not tally with the cause as mentioned by the Complain