Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 1071
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana (R) President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member, Ms. Meena Verma Member.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Diwan Singh - Respondent
First Appeal No. 227 of 2016
Decided On : 12-04-2017
Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vipender Roach vice Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi Advocates, for the Respondent
The distinction between pleadings and evidence under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is crucial in adjudicating consumer disputes.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - 12, 13(4), 15 - The court discussed the admissibility of complaint and version as evidence under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, emphasizing the distinction between pleadings and evidence. The court held that the complaint and version are not evidence on questions of facts but only pleadings of the parties. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order, and remanded the complaint for disposal in accordance with the law after obtaining evidence of parties through affidavits.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking an insurance claim for a vehicle accident. The insurance company repudiated the claim due to the driver not holding a valid driving license. The District Forum allowed the complaint, ordering the opposite party to pay the claim amount, punitive compensation, and litigation costs. The insurance company appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint and version filed by parties are not evidence on questions of facts but only pleadings. It found that the District Forum committed procedural irregularity and remanded the complaint for disposal in accordance with the law after obtaining evidence of parties through affidavits.
Issues: Admissibility of complaint and version as evidence under the Consumer Protection Act 1986
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between pleadings and evidence, holding that the complaint and version are not evidence on questions of facts but only pleadings of the parties. It found that the District Forum committed procedural irregularity and remanded the complaint for disposal in accordance with the law after obtaining evidence of parties through affidavits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the complaint was remanded for disposal in accordance with the law after obtaining evidence of parties through affidavits.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 15.03.2016 passed by Learned District Forum Shimla in consumer complaint No.61/2013 title Diwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant Diwan Singh filed a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner in possession of vehicle No.HP-064-1092. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite party w.e.f. 29.07.2010 to 28.07.2011. It is pleaded that when vehicle was on its way to Rampur the same met with an accident near Wazir Bauri Tehsil Rampur District Shimla H.P on dated 19.07.2011. It is pleaded that thereafter vehicle was brought from the place of accident to authorised service centre M/s. Yashveer Motor N.H.21 Patli Khul District Kullu who handed over a bill of Rs.287050.80 paise (Two lac eight seven thousand fifty and eighty paise) excluding vat charges. It is further pleaded that complainant intimated opposite party about accident. It is pleaded that opposite party repudiated claim on the ground that complainant has not submitted driving licence of deceased Shri Roshal Lal who was driving vehicle at the time of accident. Complainant sought relief to release accident claim to the tune of Rs.387050.80/- (Three lac eight seven thousand fifty and eighty paise) along with 12% interest till realization. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) for mental torture and complainant also sought additional relief to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is pleaded that insurance company appointed surveyor and surveyor submitted the report. It is further pleaded that claim was repudiated because driver did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is pleaded that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Shri Roshan Lal and one Vipin Kumar was also sitting in car at the time of accident. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.214154/- (Two lac fourteen thousand one hundred fifty four) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the date of actual payment. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) to complainant as punitive compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would also pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs. Learned District Forum further ordered that order would be complied by opposite party within a period of 45 days after the receipt of copy of order. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum insurance company i.e. Oriental 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 arises for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether complaint filed by complainant and version filed by opposite party under Consumer Protection Act 1986 could be treated as evidence under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in order to adjudicate consumer dispute inter se parties wherein controversial question of facts is involved.
2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. After perusal of complaint and version filed by opposite party learned District Forum proceeded to settle consumer dispute inter se parties. Learned District Forum directed parties to produce evidence. O
