Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain,Presiding Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
Versus
Maninderjeet Singh Khera —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3291 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 30/05/2017 in Appeal No. 1/2017 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 26.8.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr Pranav Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms Anu Sura, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Interest of awarded on insurance amount award of compensation for mental agony and harassment not warranted.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) : Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58 – Motor accident – Damage of vehicle – Claim for – District forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance company to pay Rs. 3,25,000/- to complainant as assessed by surveyor – Along with interest @ 9% p.a. and with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for litigation costs – State Commission dismissed the appeal but allowed costs at Rs. 10,000/- – Hence this petitions – Both fora below have given concurrent findings of facts and have not accepted assertion of insurance company that vehicle met with an accident before date of commencement of policy – Impugned award of District Forum upheld – However, costs of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- set aside, however rate of interest reduced to 6% p.a. (Paras 7 to 9)
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the order dated 30th May 2017 passed in First Appeal No. 01/ 2017 by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short the State Commission).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant is the owner of the vehicle Chevrolet Optra which was insured from the opposite parties/ petitioner herein for the period from 16.09.2014 to 15.09.2015. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 08.11.2014 and the vehicle was badly damaged. It has been stated by the complainant that notice of the accident was given to the OPs, however, despite several reminders the claim was not finalized. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties mentioning that the claim of the complainant was not genuine as the vehicle got damaged before taking the insurance and hence, it was requested to dismiss the complaint. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.3,25,000/- to the complainant for damages to the vehicle as assessed by the surveyor with interest at the rate 9% per annum and Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards harassment as well as Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the legal aid account of the Commission as the State Commission found the appeal to be a frivolous appeal against well-reasoned order passed by the District Forum.
4. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company stated that the State Commission has not considered the evidence filed by the petitioner to prove that the vehicle was already damaged before taking the insurance and has relied on the evidence and affidavit submitted by the complainant. It has been further submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner company in processing the claim of the complainant as it was the respondent who himself delayed in providing the requisite documents. Moreover, the State Commission has failed to take into consideration that the terms of the policy nowhere provided for payment of amount as ordered by the District Forum. It was further argued that the respondent has failed to submit explanation as to why the spot survey was not got carried out as it was substantial loss. No independent evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove the alleged accident as such. The State Commission has committed error by relying upon the initial offer of settlement given by the petitioner company. The initial settlement was offered as at that time, no such fraud was in the knowledge of the petitioner company. As the aspect of fraud is involved in the present matter, consumer fora have no jurisdiction to decide such a case and the matter should have been relegated to a civil Court.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent complainant stated that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts and therefore the facts cannot be reassessed by this commission in the revision petition. The District Forum has only allowed the payment of loss assessed by the surveyor who was appointed by the insurance company and who has recommended the claim. It is totally incorrect to allege that the vehicle had met with an accident before the commencement of the insurance policy. Insurance Company is only devising a means to repudiate the claim.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. First of all, it is seen that both the fora below have given concur
