NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Smt. Salochana Sharma —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2924 of 2006
(Against the Order dated 08/07/2006 in Appeal No. 63/2006 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 23.7.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Shrey Mehta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Question of law can be decided in an appropriate case where stakes are high and amount involved is substantial.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Repudiation of death claim on ground that deceased was standing on road and was watching Transformer being repaired—Litigation is going on for last about 9 years—Only paltry amount of Rs.1 lac plus interest and cost are involved in this case—Question of law raised in this petition kept open to be decided in an appropriate case where stakes are high and amount involved is substantial. (Paras 8 and 11)
Result : Revision Petition disposed of with observations.
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Heard.
2. Case of Respondent/Complainant is that her husband, Sh. Yashpal Sharma (since deceased) had obtained an Insurance Policy from the Petitioner/Opposite Party, for his Scooter with effect from 24.4.2004 to 23.4.2005 and had paid a premium of Rs.480/- for covering personal accident of the owner-driver also for a sum insured of Rs.1 lac, as provided in compulsory insurance provisions of India Motor Tariff.
3. It is alleged, that on 15.07.2004 the scooter of her husband was hit by some unknown vehicle and was seriously injured. Later on he succumbed to his injuries on 16.7.2004. FIR No.130 dated 16.7.2004 was lodged. A personal accident claim was lodged with the petitioner along with necessary documents. The same was illegally repudiated by the petitioner, vide letter dated 24.01.2005. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the petitioner, respondent filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
4. Petitioner in its written statement denied all the allegations, stating therein that at the time of accident deceased-Yashpal Sharma was standing on the road and was watching the transformer being repaired. Thus, accident was not covered under the ambit of insurance policy. It is further stated, that insurance policy covered only risk involved, while in the process of driving the vehicle or mounting or dismounting from the vehicle and not otherwise.
5. District Forum vide order dated 22.2.2006, dismissed the complaint.
6. Being aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’), which vide impugned order dated 08.07.2006, accepted the appeal with cost of Rs.10,000/- and respondent was awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac with interest @ 9% after two months from the date of death of deceased i.e. 16.7.2004.
7. Hence, this revision.
8. Respondent’s husband died in the year 2004. The consumer complaint was filed in the year 2006. Thus, this litigation is going on for last about 9 years. Even otherwise, only paltry amount of Rs.1 lac plus interest and cost, are involved in this case.
9. Hon’ble Apex court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and Another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC): 2013(4) CPR 378 (SC) has observed;
“2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.”
The Apex Court further held;
“10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers’ office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and, to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs.15,000/-even according to the af