SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(HP) 1078

HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana, President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member, Ms. Meena Verma, Member.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar - Respondent
First Appeal No. : 273 of 2016
Decided On : 28-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate, for the Respondent

The insurance company is obligated to indemnify the owner in case of theft, and the repudiation of a claim can be considered a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - 1986 - [Section 15] - [Section 12, Section 379 IPC] - The court discussed the validity of the registration certificate and fitness certificate of the vehicle, the obligation of the insurance company to indemnify the owner in case of theft, and the unfair trade practice of the insurance company in repudiating the claim. The court cited case law to support its decision and held that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant in a stolen vehicle case, and the repudiation letter issued by the insurance company is a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, stating that his vehicle was stolen and the insurance company repudiated the claim on the grounds of invalid registration and fitness certificates. The District Forum allowed the complaint and granted compensation to the complainant. The insurance company appealed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum, holding the insurance company liable to indemnify the complainant and declaring the repudiation letter as a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Issues: Validity of the insurance claim, obligation of the insurance company, and unfair trade practice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company is obligated to indemnify the owner in case of theft, and the repudiation letter issued by the insurance company is a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Forum was affirmed. Each party was left to bear their own costs.

ORDER

Mr. P.S. Rana, President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by District Forum in consumer complaint No.19 of 2014 title Suresh Kumar v. General Manager National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. decided on 12.05.2016 .

Brief facts of Case:

2. Complainant Suresh Kumar filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle No.HP-74-1112 pick-up tralla. It is pleaded that vehicle was purchased by complainant from M/s Baba Service Centre Dugha District Hamirpur in consideration amount of Rs.440000/- (Four lac and forty thousand). It is further pleaded that vehicle was parked near his house at Dimmi on roadside in night on dated 30.07.2013 and when complainant at about 7:00 AM on dated 31.07.2013 came at spot vehicle was found missing. It is pleaded that report was lodged in police station Bhoranj District Hamipur H.P. It is further pleaded that vehicle is not traceable. It is further pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with insurance company. It is pleaded that insurance company repudiated claim on the ground that on the date of theft registration certificate and fitness certificate of vehicle were not valid. Following reliefs sought by complainant before learned District Forum (i) Compensation to the tune of Rs.264000/- (Two lac and sixty four thousand) along with interest @10% per annum till realization of entire amount (ii) Additional relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.50000 (Fifty thousand) also sought for harassment and mental agony (iii) Additional relief of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) also sought as costs of complaint.

3. Per contra version filed on behalf of insurance company pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any compensation as prayed. It is further pleaded that registration certificate and fitness certificate of vehicle were not valid at the time of incident of theft. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing present complaint by his act and conduct. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach learned District Forum with clean hands and it is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file complaint and prayer for dismissal of complaint with special costs sought.

4. Learned District Forum allowed complaint on dated 12.05.2016 and granted following reliefs (i) learned District Forum ordered insurance company to pay Rs.264000/- (Two lac and sixty four thousand) to complainant within 30 days from receipt of copy of order (ii) learned District Forum ordered that insurance company will also pay interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint if amount is not paid within 30 days (iii) learned District Forum also granted additional relief of punitive compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/- (Four thousand) (iv) learned District Forum also granted additional relief of costs of litigation to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/- (Four thousand).

5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission.

6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.

7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal.

1. Whether appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.

2. Final order.

Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:

8. Complainant Suresh Kumar filed affidavit in evidence annexure C-1 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was owner of vehicle No. HP-74-1112 pick-up tralla and there is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was purchased by complainant from M/s. Baba Service Centre Dugha Hamirpur in consideration amount of Rs.440000/- (Four lac and forty thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle wa

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