Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 1303
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana (R), President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Kamla Devi - Appellant
Versus
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 177 of 2017
Decided On : 02-01-2019
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate, for Respondent
The main legal point established is that the appointment and report of a surveyor cum loss assessor under the Insurance Act 1938 are substantial pieces of evidence in insurance claim disputes.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - 1986, Section 15 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 12; Insurance Act 1938, Section 64UM(2); Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 2(30) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, particularly Section 12, and the requirements for filing a consumer complaint. It also referenced the Insurance Act 1938, Section 64UM(2) regarding the appointment of a surveyor cum loss assessor by the insurance company. The court also considered the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 2(30) in relation to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking payment for an insurance claim after a vehicle accident. The insurance company disputed the claim, citing delay in intimation and failure to provide relevant documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to a reduced amount based on the evidence provided, and ordered the insurance company to pay the reduced claim amount along with compensation for mental agony and harassment, as well as litigation costs.
Issues: Delay in intimation, submission of relevant documents, validity of the settlement, entitlement to compensation, and liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including the insurance policy, surveyor's report, and the lack of evidence to support the complainant's claims. It also referenced legal precedents related to the role of surveyors in insurance claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the insurance company was ordered to pay a reduced claim amount, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs to the complainant.
JUDGMENT
P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 14.03.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.58/2014 titled Kamla Devi v. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Smt. Kamla Devi filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is owner of vehicle registration No. HP-63A-1350. It is pleaded that vehicle was purchased for earning livelihood by means of self employment. It is pleaded that vehicle was duly insured with opposite party for IDV value of Rs. 538118/- (Five lac thirty eight thousand one hundred eighteen) w.e.f. 08.08.2012 to 07.08.2013. It is further pleaded that vehicle met with accident on dated 05.08.2013 and FIR was filed. It is pleaded that claim was filed before opposite party. It is pleaded that opposite party did not settle the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 350000/- (Three lac fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.2014 till the date of actual payment. In addition complainant sought punitive compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that vehicle was insured with opposite party for a sum of Rs. 538118/- (Five lac thirty eight thousand one hundred eighteen). It is pleaded that there was delay of 12 days in giving intimation to opposite party and opposite party was deprived of valuable right to investigate the matter. It is pleaded that opposite party appointed surveyor cum loss assessor namely Shri Sandeep Sharma. It is pleaded that surveyor cum loss assessor requested the complainant to supply relevant documents but relevant documents were not supplied. It is further pleaded that thereafter surveyor cum loss assessor submitted report on the basis of physical inspection and assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 95000/-(Ninety five thousand) on repair basis. It is pleaded that loss assessed by surveyor cum loss assessor is not above 75% of the sum assured. It is pleaded that insurance company is not liable to pay the amount to the insurer on the basis of total loss. 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 ordered that complainant shall furnish documents to the opposite party within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would send copy of documents to surveyor and thereafter surveyor would assess loss de novo and would settle the claim in accordance with law within 45 days from the date of receipt of documents. Learned District Forum further ordered that in case surveyor who has conducted the survey would not be available for any reasons then opposite party would be at liberty to appoint another surveyor cum loss assessor for assessment of loss. Learned District Forum further ordered that in case complainant would not be satisfied with the settlement of claim by opposite party then she would be at liberty to approach forum again in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant 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 appellant 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 of Shri Yash Pal in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is husband of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that complainan
