Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Pankaj Sood – Respondent
Revision Petition No.3511 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 01/07/2013 in Appeal No. 110/2013 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 7.7.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition - Against the Order dt 01.07.2013 in Appeal of the State Commission - Toyota Corolla bearing No.C.G.-04-CZ-1555 was duly insured by the Petitioner under Policy No.191300/31/2010/8124 for the period from 24.01.2010 to 23.01.2011 – Car stolen – FIR lodged at Nagpur on 24.05.2010 – Respondent filed claim – Claim repudiated by the Petitioner for violation of terms & condition of Policy and delayed intimation – Distt. Forum held Petitioner liable to pay Rs.7,07,000, interest@6% p.a., Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs – Appeal in State Commission also dismissed – Petitioner failed to satisfy as to which clause, term or condition of Policy was violated by Respondent - Insurance is contract and nothing shall be presumed which is written down in the contract – Respondent intimated with delay of 4-5 days which is very reasonable in facts and circumstances of the present case - Jurisdiction conferred on National Commission under Section 21 (b) of Act has been transgressed - No reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both Fora.
Held: It is an admitted fact that Toyota Corolla bearing No.C.G.-04-CZ-1555 was duly insured by the Petitioner under Policy No.191300/31/2010/8124 for the period from 24.01.2010 to 23.01.2011. On 19.05.2010 Mr. Kamlesh the said offender ran away with the vehicle. On receiving telephone call from driver on 21.05.2010, the Complainant went to Police Station Telibandha, Raipur to lodge F.I.R. but he was informed that as the vehicle was stolen /taken away by Mr. Kamlesh from Nagpur hence FIR should be lodged at Nagpur. FIR was lodged at Nagpur on 24.05.2010. Thereafter the Respondent filed claim form along with relevant documents which was repudiated by the Petitioner for violation of terms & condition of the Policy and delayed intimation.
From the above facts and submission it observed that Petitioner filed this petition on two grounds (i) violation of terms and condition of Policy and (ii) delayed intimation regarding incident which occurred on 19.05.2010 by the Respondent.It is observed that Petitioner failed to satisfy this Commission as to which clause, term or condition of Policy was violated by the Respondent. Insurance is contract and nothing shall be presumed which is written down in the contract i.e., Policy. It not just and fair to create pseudo conditions which are not clearly laid down in the Policy by the Insurance Company. Regarding delay in intimation it is observed that the incident took place on 19.05.2010 and on 21.05.2010 the Respondent went to lodge the FIR first at Telibandha and finally at Sone Gaon, Nagpur on 24.05.2010. As admitted by the Opposite Party, they were intimated with a delay of 4-5 days which is very reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The objections taken by the Petitioner have been suitably dealt with by the State Commission and District Forum.
I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. The Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision jurisdiction of this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to the cost. (Paras 9, 10 & 13)
Result: Revision Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 01/07/2013 passed by Chhattishgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.13/110.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was owner of Toyota Corola bearing No.C.G.-04-CZ- 1555. The Complainant had obtained Insurance coverage from the Opposite Party under Policy No.191300/31/2010/8124 for the period from 24.01.2010 to 23.01.2011. The vehicle of the Complainant was used as taxi and it was attached to Hotel Babylon. On receiving a call from the Hotel on 19.05.2010, driver Mr. Mukesh Kumar had taken the vehicle to the Hotel. The car was used by the customer by name Kamlesh. On the next day the vehicle was called again and the driver took the vehicle to the Hotel. He took the vehicle to Nagpur and from there he sent the driver to Mumbai by air, for bringing some important draft. He also made arrangements for stay of the driver at a hotel. Mukesh Kumar reached the hotel and waited for the person from whom the draft was to be collected, but nobody turned up. He tried to contact Mr. Kamlesh but his mobile was switched off. Thereafter the driver informed the Complainant on phone regarding the incident. On receiving telephone call from the driver on 21.05.2010, the Complainant went to lodge the F.I.R. at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur but it was informed that since the vehicle was stolen/taken away by Kamlesh from Nagpur, the F.I.R. should be lodged at Nagpur. Thereafter on 24.05.2010, the Complainant also lodged an FIR at Sone Gaon, Nagpur. Intimation to the Insurer was also given and the claim form along with relevant documents was presented before the Insurance Company for settlement of claim. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground of delayed intimation and violation of terms of the Insurance Policy as the Complainant had lost the vehicle due to negligence of the driver. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, Complainant filed Complaint No.53 of 2014 before the District Forum with the following prayer: -
“(26) That the complainant Prays. Following relief and cost of the claim before Hon’ble Forum:-
01. That the opposite Party be ordered to pay to the complainant the I.D.B. value of the vehicle Rs. 7,07,000/- in words seven lakh seven thousand rupees with 18% per cent yearly interest.
02. The Opposite Party be ordered to pay to the complainant compensation amount Rs. 100000/- in words one lakh rupees.
03. That Hon’ble Forum be pleased to order Cost of the dispute as well as the relief deeming fit and reasonable in favour of the complainant.”
3. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party stating that Complaint was not maintainable as Complainant did not fall under the category of Consumer and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum to adjudicate the matter. It was also averred that the Complainant had violated the terms of the Insurance Policy as he had lost the vehicle due to negligence of the driver and the vehicle was being plied without permit. Since it was not a case of theft the Opposite Party was, therefore not liable for payment of claim amount.
4. The District Forum after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, observed that delay in intimation cannot be a ground for repudiation of claim. It observed that the offender ran away with the vehicle fraudulently which amounted to theft, duly covered under the Policy. The Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by not settling the claim of the Complainant. The District Forum, vide order dated 02.05.2012, allowed the Complaint with the following order—
“The respondent is liable to pay Rs.7,07,000/- (Rupees seven lacs, seven thousand only) along with Interest @ 6% from the date of filing the complaint till Its realization;
(b) The respondent is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupee Ten thousand only) for mental agony committed by the complainant du
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
