Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ajay Singh Salwani - Respondent
First Appeal No. 119 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2018
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - 1986 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED: Section 15, Section 12, Section 2(o)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, particularly focusing on the definition of service under section 2(o) and the obligations of the insurance company in processing claims. The court also emphasized the importance of evidence presented, such as the report submitted by the insurance investigator, as binding upon the insurance company. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the act's provisions and the application of legal principles established in previous cases.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint against the insurance company for not settling a claim related to a stolen vehicle. The District Forum ordered the insurance company to pay the claim amount, punitive compensation, and litigation costs. The insurance company appealed the decision before the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission partly allowed the appeal, affirming the payment of the claim amount, punitive compensation, and litigation costs. The court also emphasized the importance of evidence presented, such as the report submitted by the insurance investigator, as binding upon the insurance company.
Issues: The determination of whether the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be accepted and the final order to be issued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of the evidence presented, particularly the report submitted by the insurance investigator, and upheld the decision of the District Forum regarding the payment of the claim amount, punitive compensation, and litigation costs.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the court ordered the complainant to execute a letter of subrogation in favor of the insurance company. The decision of the District Forum regarding the payment of the claim amount, punitive compensation, and litigation costs was affirmed and modified accordingly.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 26.12.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 351/2012 title Ajay Singh Salwani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Brief facts of Consumer Complaint:
2. Complainant Ajay Singh Salwani filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainant was owner of Maruti Alto-LX Vehicle No. HP-01A-1254. It is pleaded that complainant insured vehicle from opposite party on dated 07.05.2010 in consideration amount of Rs. 100000/- (One lac). It is further pleaded that insurance premium was duly paid to the insurance company and insurance policy was operative from 08.05.2010 to 07.05.2011. It is further pleaded that vehicle No. HP-01A-1254 was forcibly taken by three unknown persons from the driver on dated 22.07.2010. It is further pleaded that driver was assaulted. It is further pleaded that information was given to opposite party and FIR was also filed. It is further pleaded that insurance company did not settle claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 100000/-(One lac) alongwith interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 12.10.2012 till the date of payment. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of sum of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) as damages. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 11000/- (Eleven thousand).
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that opposite party did not repudiate claim of complainant. It is pleaded that complainant did not furnish requisite documents and it is further pleaded that opposite party has closed claim as no claim. It is admitted that vehicle was insured with opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) w.e.f 08.05.2010 to 07.05.2011. It is further pleaded that vehicle was financed by ICICI bank Shimla and ICICI bank Shimla is necessary party. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. It is further pleaded that police official submitted cancellation report before competent Judicial Magistrate. It is further pleaded that insurance company appointed insurance investigator namely M.K. Chadha who had submitted investigation report to insurance company. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) minus excess clause to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint within 45 days subject to furnishing letter of subrogation in favour of complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as punitive compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would also pay sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs to the complainant.
5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by insurance company is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons:
8. After perusal of complaint and after perusal of version filed by opposite party learned District Forum ordered the parties to adduce evidence qua controversial facts. Learned advocate appeared on behalf of complainant has given statement on dated 24.06.2014 before learned District Forum that complaint alongwith documents annexures C-1 to C-3 already fil
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
