Back
IN THE STATE ONSUMERX DISPUT ES REDRESSAL C0MMI SSION,
ORISSA, CUPTACK.
F.A. No.
oo7
In the matte of:
An Appeal Under Section 15 of the
Con eumer Protection áct,1986.
An d
In the matter of:
National In surancé Compan y It6.,
Nayapada, .
Sambalpur towna,
P.O./i st. Sambel pur.
(Opp.Party in the court below)
Appellant
-Ver sus-
Anil Kumar Agrwal,
S/o Chandra hol Agrawal,
resiåent of
of Brajarajnagar,
P.0./P. S. Brajarajnagar,
Di st. Jhar suguda.
Station Road
( Complainant in the court be low) . .. Respondent
Tiaa hiumhla iamanandn
Annaal
SI. No.
Date of
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
of Order
Order
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
oa21 12-21
FIRST APPEAL NOL 164 OF 2007
Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the
Act'). Parties to this appeal shall be referred. to with
reference to their respective status before the District
Forum.
3. The complainant being owner of vehicle bearing
Registration
No.OR-15-B-7295
has
purchased
the
insurance policy for the vehicle from the OP. During
currency of the policy on 3.11.1998 the vehicle met
accident causing death of a child. Thereafter, complainant
paid Rs.50,000/- as ex gratia to the parents of the child on
3.11.1998. However, the parent of the child filed case
before the MACT, Sambalpur for compensation and after
-
disposal of the case, the learned
MACT awarded
OGF
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
Rs.1,69,500/- but deducted Rs.50,000/- which was paid by
complainant and directed the insurer to pay Rs.1,19,500/-
to the parent of the child. It is alleged by the complainant
that Rs.50,000/- as paid by him has not been reimbursed
by the appellant. So the complaint was filed.
4. OP appeared and filed writen
version stating that
4. they have already complied the order of the learned
MACT and the complainant is hot entitled to get any
amount. He has paid the amount as ex gratia. So, there is
no any deficiency of service on their part.
After hearing both parties, the learned District
Forum passed the following impugned order:
"XXX XXX XXX
The complaint petition is allowed. The Insurance
Company (OP) is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty thousand) to the complaint within a month from
ttre tate of Tereipt of copy of this orcder feiking-which
SI. No.
of Order
Date of
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
Order
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10 per
cent on the said amount ti the date of payment. In
the peculiar circumstances of the case, we do not feel
to award any compensatidn or cost as prayed for.
With this observation, we di_pose of this case."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
learned District Forum has committed error in law by not
going through the written version properly. It is further
submitted that they have already (complied the order of
the learned MACT and the complajnant is not entitled to
get any amount from the OP. This aspect has not been
verified by the learned District Forum. So, he submitted to
set aside the impugned order by allbwing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the resppndent submitted that
the complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- from the
insurer and rightly the impugned order has been passed.
***
***** **
OGF
?.
1: i
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER ITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Onder
Considered the submission of learned counsel for
8. the respective parties and perused the DFR including the
impugned order.
It is well settled in law that|complainant is required
to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP
including the maintainability of the complaint.
10. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that the
complainant's vehicle was insured with the OP and
