Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
ASHOK PARIHAR, PRESIDENT, ANIL KUMAR MISHRA, SUNITA RANKA, MEMBERS
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Netram & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 103 of 2012
Decided on : 23-07-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Kamal Chamaria, Advocate.
The discretion of consumer forums to condone delay and the obligation of insurance companies to consider justifiable grounds for filing a complaint.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Consumer Protection Act - The court upheld the decision of the District Forum to grant relief to the complainant for an insurance claim, emphasizing the discretion of the forum to condone delay and the obligation of the insurance company to consider justifiable grounds for filing a complaint. The court also highlighted the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act to provide a speedy remedy to consumers and the requirement to decide complaints summarily after giving due opportunity to the other party.
Fact of the Case:
The insured vehicle was stolen, and the insurance company repudiated the claim due to the non-submission of original documents. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum after a delay of more than seven years, seeking relief for the insurance claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Forum had used proper discretion in granting relief to the complainant and upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal. The court also directed the insurance company to pay further costs to the complainant for the delay in processing the claim.
Issues: The issues involved the repudiation of the insurance claim due to non-submission of original documents, the delay in filing the complaint, and the discretion of the District Forum to condone the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretion of the consumer forums to condone delay if justifiable and reasonable grounds are presented. It also highlighted the obligation of the insurance company to consider the circumstances of the case and the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act to provide a speedy remedy to consumers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the relief granted by the District Forum, and directed the insurance company to pay further costs to the complainant for the delay in processing the claim.
ORDER :
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur by which in a case of theft of insured vehicle, the appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakh to the respondent/complainant after deducting 10% depreciation with interest along with Rs. 2000 as expenses.
2. As has come on record the vehicle was purchased in the year 1997 after taking loan from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The vehicle was duly insured for the period from 23.7.1998 to 22.7.1999. However, the theft took place on 6.5.1999. Immediately an FIR has been lodged as also the appellant has been informed about the theft. It has further been alleged that as per reminders issued by the appellant all the necessary documents including letter of subrogation and letter of undertaking on non-judicial stamp has been submitted to the appellant. However, the claim was not accepted by the Insurance Company.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the original documents of the vehicle have not been submitted, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company way back in the year 2000 itself. However, the main objection as raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant has been in regard to limitation to the extent that complaint to the District Forum had been filed after more than seven years and should have been dismissed only on this ground.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through the material on record.
4. There is no dispute that the vehicle insured had been purchased after taking loan from the respondent Financial Corporation. After theft of the vehicle all the necessary formalities have been duly complied with by the respondent/complainant. The original documents could not have been submitted since the documents had also been stolen along with the vehicle and the same finds place in the FIR itself as such certified copies of the necessary documents have been duly submitted by the complainant before the Insurance Company. It has been alleged by the respondent/complainant that since the vehicle had been pledged with the Financial Corporation, he was under the impression that the payment of insurance claim would be paid by the appellant directly to the Financial Corporation. However, it was only in the year 2007 he received a notice from the Financial Corporation that amount of loan may be paid immediately.
Accordingly, the claim was settled with the Financial Corporation and a complaint was filed before the District Forum.
5. If there are justifiable and reasonable ground, the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have the discretion to condone the delay and we find sufficient reasons given by the respondent/complainant for filing the complaint after the delay as alleged by the appellant. That apart a bare reading of the documents as submitted by the appellant Insurance Company before the District Forum would show that all the notices are in printed form. On one side time is granted to submit necessary documents and on the other side file is closed. Once it has categorically been stated by the respondent/complainant that all the requisite documents have duly been submitted in time, there was no ground for the appellant to close the file in mechanical manner insisting only on submitting the original documents. On the face of it, it appears that authorities of the appellant did not apply their mind on the facts of the case to the extent that the documents had also been stolen along with the vehicle.
On the basis of evidence and material on record after arriving at a finding the District Forum has used proper discretion in granting appropriate relief to the respondent/complainant. We find no error or illegality in the same so as to call for any further interference in the present appeal.
It is also well settled that in case we accept the findings and discretion used by the District Forum, we are not required to refer again the en
