Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
P.S. RANA, VIJAY PAL KHACHI, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
Sneh Prabha – Respondent
First Appeal No. 265 of 2017
Decided On : 06-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sat Prakash, Mr. Naveen Negi.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the validity of the driving license, the presence of unauthorized passengers, the assessment of damages by the surveyor, and the privity of contract between the insured and the insurance company.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance Claim - Section 15 - Vehicle Insurance - 12, 15 - The court discussed the validity of the driving license, the presence of unauthorized passengers, the assessment of damages by the surveyor, and the privity of contract between the insured and the insurance company.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint was filed by Smt. Saneh Prabha against The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking compensation for a vehicle accident and alleging deficiency in service by the insurance company. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the insurance company to pay compensation, punitive damages, and litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission partially allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation amount and affirming the punitive damages and litigation costs. The court also discussed the validity of the driving license, the presence of unauthorized passengers, the assessment of damages by the surveyor, and the privity of contract between the insured and the insurance company.
Issues: Validity of driving license, Presence of unauthorized passengers, Assessment of damages, Privity of contract
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver had a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, the presence of unauthorized passengers was not proven, the assessment of damages by the surveyor was upheld, and the privity of contract existed between the insured and the insurance company.
Final Decision: The appeal was partially allowed, reducing the compensation amount and affirming the punitive damages and litigation costs. The report of the surveyor cum loss assessor formed part of the order, and the parties were left to bear their own litigation costs.
ORDER :
1. Present appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 28.3.2017 passed by learned District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 02/2013 titled Saneh Prabha vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Smt. Saneh Prabha filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle No. HP-25A-2172. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite parties. It is pleaded that vehicle met with an accident at Kharai Dank (Roghi) on 13.7.2005. It is further pleaded that FIR No. 58 was lodged in Police Station Reckong Peo on dated 13.7.2005. It is pleaded that damaged claim was submitted before opposite parties after completing all codal formalities. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 3,76,000 (Three lac seventy six thousand) along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of accident. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that insurance policy w.e.f. 10.9.2004 to 9.9.2005 was issued by Insurance Company. It is pleaded that IDV value of the vehicle was Rs. 3,76,000 (Three lacs seventy six thousand). It is further pleaded that vehicle was hypothecated with H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Reckong Peo. It is pleaded that driver was legally competent to drive LMV vehicle w.e.f. 24.9.2001 to 23.9.2004. It is further pleaded that vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that Insurance Company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Mohinder K. Sharma. It is pleaded that surveyor cum loss assessor recommended payment to the tune of Rs. 2,95,500 (Two lac ninety five thousand five hundred) to complainant in toto. It is pleaded that Insurance Company also appointed Shri Ram Mohan Negi to investigate the matter and submit the report. It is further pleaded that two unauthorized and gratuitous passengers were travelling in goods vehicle at the time of accident. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,76,000 (Three lac seventy six thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment within forty five days from the date of order. In addition learned District Forum ordered Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 (Ten thousand) as punitive damages on account of mental agony and harassment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that Insurance Company would pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 (Five thousand) as litigation costs. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum Insurance Company filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal:
1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that persons travelling in vehicle were not gratuitous passengers. There is recital in affidavit that persons were carrying vegetable crops in the vehicle to market. There is further recital in affidavit that driver Ashok Kumar was holding valid driving licence w.e.f. 2004 to 13.1.2007. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has not violated any terms and conditions of insurance policy and deponent is entitled for the damage claim from opposite parties. State C
