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
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member
Ashok Kumar Agrawal —Petitioner
versus
Manager, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2223 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 18/05/2015 in Appeal No.726/2014 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 7.11.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mohd Anis ur Rehman, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Insured is estopped from claiming more amount after voluntarily signing discharge voucher.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Theft of insured vehicle—Vehicle was left unattended by appellant (complainant) and appellant himself is negligent for security of his vehicle—Appellant violated terms and conditions of insurance policy—As such, appellant is only entitled for getting compensation on non-standard basis and respondent (O.P.) has rightly paid compensation to appellant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of Insured Declared Value of vehicle—Action of petitioner does not speak of a person who was compelled to sign discharge voucher under any coercion or compulsion or on receiving money have signed discharge voucher—No jurisdictional error or material irregularity in impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 8 to 11)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

       

ORDER

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.05.2015 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 726 of 2014.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that petitioner a businessman had obtained an insurance policy No.450300/31/10/0100008274 for his vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-HC-3950. The premium of the said policy was Rs.12,643/- and the sum assured was Rs.4,87,296/-. The said policy was effective for the period from 06.01.2011 to 05.01.2012. On the intervening night of 21-22/04/2011, the vehicle of the petitioner was stolen by some unknown person from his residence at D-15, Sector -1, Raipur. The petitioner made a complaint in the Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur, where Crime No.58/11 was registered. Police investigated the matter and tried their level best to search the vehicle and accused, but when they did not trace the vehicle, a Final Report (Khatma Prativedan) No.19/11, was registered by the Police. The petitioner submitted claim form before the respondent/opposite party/ insurance company and the insurance company paid a sum of Rs.3,46,824/- to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.1,40,472/- was still payable by the insurance company to the petitioner. On 18.04.2013, and 24.04.2013 the petitioner sent letters to the insurance company for making payment of the remaining amount. On 09.05.2013, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the insurance company through Advocate but the insurance company did not give any reply thereof. The petitioner contacted the insurance company several times for obtaining the remaining amount, but the insurance company did not pay the same to him due to which the petitioner suffered mental agony and the said act of the insurance company comes within the purview of deficiency in service. Therefore, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint:

* Amount of Rs.1,40,472/- was to be provided out of the balance amount to the petitioner from the insurance company;

* In lieu of mental and financial agony the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- are to be provided;

* The litigation expenses are to be provided;

* Any other relief and cost was to be provided to the petitioner which the Court deems fit and reasonable.

3. The respondent/ opposite party/ insurance company filed their written statement before the District Forum and averred that the petitioner had left his vehicle unattended in the road outside his house without taking any safety measure. The petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance company had paid 75% of the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle to the petitioner i.e. Rs.3,46,824/-. The petitioner was not entitled for getting the remaining insured value Rs.1,40,772/- from the insurance company.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 22.08.2014 while dismissing the complaint observed as under:

“In our opinion non-applicant insurance company has made the payment of 75 per cent amount of IDV amount of Rs.4,62,932/- as Rs.3,46,824/- to the complainant and complainant has accepted the same upto his complete satisfaction and presented the complaint for the balance amount. Complainant on not keeping the vehicle in the sufficient security has violated the conditions of insurance, therefore if insurance company wanted then would have rejected the claim but insurance company on entering into settlement with the complainant has paid the 75 per cent amount of the insured amount of that vehicle hence, not committed any deficiency in services. In this manner when complainant upto his complete satisfaction has obtained the payment of Rs.3,46,824/- which is the 75 per cent amount of the IDV amount of Rs.4,62,932/- from the insu




















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