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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Anup K Thakur, Member
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Sampati Devi —Respondent
Revision Petition No.416 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 09/11/2015 in Appeal No. 591/2015 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 12.4.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.K. Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Nemo

IMPORTANT POINT
Opinion consent of complainant must be taken before releasing amount to Financier.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to insured vehicle in accident—No-settlement of claim—District Forum directed petitioner/OP to pay to complainant sum of Rs.55,329/- with 9% interest, compensation of Rs.5500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2500/-—Opinion consent of complainant was not taken before releasing amount to Financier nor any in discharge voucher is produced—As far as double payment is concerned insurance company can recover it back from Financer—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 4 to 8)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

       

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated 09.11.2015 in Appeal No.591 of 2015 whereby the State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

2. Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the concerned District Forum alleging that she had insured her vehicle make Swaraj Mazda having Registration no.RJ-14GA-0031 with the petitioner company. The said vehicle met with an accident resulting in damage. On being informed, the petitioner/OP appointed a surveyor who confirmed the damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident. According to the complainant, she incurred expenses of Rs.2,81,119/- for the repair of the vehicle but her insurance claim was not settled. Being aggrieved, the respondent/complainant raised the consumer dispute.

3. The petitioner/OP in the WS admitted that the subject vehicle was insured with the OP. The vehicle met with an accident and sustained damage. According to the petitioner/OP on the basis of survey report, the insurance claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.50,000/- for which a cheque was issued to the complainant after obtaining her consent for settlement. The petitioner/OP pleaded that the complainant after having settled the matter was estopped raising the consumer dispute.

4. The District Forum on appreciation of evidence did not find merit in the defence of the petitioner accordingly holding the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service, the District Forum directed the petitioner/OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.55,329/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of the complaint till the realization of the amount. Besides compensation of Rs.5500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2500/- were awarded.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan. The State Commission on re-appreciation of the evidence dismissed the appeal. The relevant observation of the State Commission are re-produced as under:-

“It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the order of learned District Forum is not sustainable as if the complainant is paid this amount then it will amount to double payment whereas the insurance company has already paid to the financer.

With considered this point, and perused the record.

In our considered opinion consent of the complainant was not taken before releasing the amount to the financer nor any in discharge voucher is produced, this case was of accidental vehicle, the complainant filed claim for appearing the vehicle, claim amount cannot be released to the financier without consent of the complainant or consent of both the parties as if insurance company and financier Shriram group is the one company, in these circumstances the amount released by insurance company and direct to its group company amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit to interfere with the order of learned District Forum. As far as double payment is concerned the insurance company can recover it back from the financer.

Therefore, the appeal is not acceptable, hence dismissed.”

6. Learned Shri N.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has ignored that as per the damage assessed by the surveyor sum of Rs.50,000/- was offered to the complainant for full & final settlement of her claim but she refused to accept the same therefore, left with no option, the petitioner/OP deposited the said amount in the loan account of the respondent with Shri Ram transport Finance Co. Ltd.

7. We do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the argument raised today is beyond the pleading of the petitioner set up in the WS. Otherwise a




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